Fostering Sustainability Leadership Through SDG 13 Integration in Business Curricula

Abstract

Climate literacy is pivotal for preparing future leaders to address global climate challenges and build a sustainable future. Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a central role in embedding sustainability principles, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 (Climate Action), into curricula to cultivate responsible leadership. This study examines the integration of SDG 13 within the business curriculum at Delta University (UAE), assessing undergraduate students’ perceptions of climate education and how teaching methods shape sustainability leadership. Using a mixed-methods approach—a closed-ended survey and Q-methodology—the research analyzes students’ awareness, engagement, and subjective perspectives on pedagogical strategies. The results reveal a disconnect between theoretical knowledge and students’ ability to apply these principles in real-world business contexts. While students acknowledged climate action’s importance and supported active learning pedagogies (e.g., case studies, simulations), skepticism persisted about SDG 13’s applicability to business operations. The findings highlight the need for curricular reforms, aligning curricula with national sustainability strategies (e.g., UAE Net Zero 2050) to bridge theory and practice. This research advocates for HEIs to prioritize climate competencies, ensuring that graduates can address environmental challenges through actionable frameworks. By transcending symbolic commitments, HEIs can empower students to lead regionally and globally, advancing sustainability education’s role in achieving equitable, low-carbon societies.

1. Introduction

Integrating climate action, specifically Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13, into higher education institutions (HEIs) is increasingly recognized as essential for preparing future leaders to tackle global climate challenges [1,2,3]. HEIs play a key role in fostering a socially just, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable world by embedding sustainability in all their core functions [1,4]. Business schools (BSs), in particular, have a responsibility to equip future professionals with the knowledge and skills necessary to integrate sustainability and address climate-related issues within their practices [5,6,7].

Research suggests that university students are generally aware of climate change and its risks [1,2,3,4]. However, while the existing literature extensively explores the role of HEIs in promoting sustainability and advancing the SDGs through investigating the integration of sustainability into business curricula [8,9,10,11,12,13,14], research and outreach [15], and aligning sustainability competences with innovative pedagogies [16,17,18,19], there remains a lack of consensus on the importance that students place on their discipline to address these challenges and the most effective ways to embed sustainability in business education [20,21]. Although some institutions have made progress, integration often lacks depth, neglecting systemic and anticipatory thinking [8,17,18], and various enablers and barriers to climate change persist [22]. Furthermore, recently, there has been increasing attention given to students’ perspectives on sustainability integration to inform pedagogical practices [18,23].

The UAE presents unique cultural and societal factors that offer both challenges and opportunities for SDG 13 integration [24,25]. While UAE-based research has explored students’ awareness of sustainability and pro-environmental behaviors, emphasizing the region-specific challenges and opportunities [4,26], there is a notable gap in research on student perceptions of SDG 13 integration, particularly in the UAE. Most studies have approached this topic from an expert perspective rather than a student-centric viewpoint, leaving a gap in understanding the true integration of SDG principles from students’ perspectives [8,27].

Our study is pioneering in addressing this gap by exploring the extent to which students perceive climate change as integrated into the business curriculum and pedagogies within a UAE-based institution, such as Delta University. The UAE’s strong technological advancement and focus on sustainability provide a unique context for this study [22,24]. Understanding students’ perceptions is crucial, as future change agents who acquire knowledge, skills, and values for sustainability education can better address climate change [8,27]. Specifically, this paper aims to

-

Assess undergraduate business students’ perceptions at Delta University regarding the integration of SDG 13 into their formal curriculum;

-

Determine how students at Delta University perceive pedagogical approaches to embed climate change-related topics within their business courses;

-

Identify the areas where students perceive the strong integration of SDG 13 and areas where integration is less evident;

-

Provide suggestions for future curricular development and pedagogical strategies that could help to foster climate literacy, competencies, and sustainability leadership among business students.

This study employs a quantitative research approach, using a closed-ended survey questionnaire to collect students’ perceptions on various aspects of their learning experience, including course content and pedagogical methods related to SDG 13. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize overall perceptions. Q-methodology, a mixed-methods approach, was also used to systematically analyze subjective perspectives, providing a deeper understanding of the different viewpoints held by students regarding the integration of SDG 13 in higher education (HE) [28].

Preliminary findings demonstrate that Delta University students recognize the importance of climate action (SDG 13) and its curricular integration [5]. While positive student perceptions exist regarding institutional policy alignment and active learning pedagogies [1,2,3], skepticism and differences remain concerning the practical application of climate concepts and the neutrality of career relevance [8,29]. These patterns highlight fragmented climate education adoption in business programs, consistent with incomplete transformational integration [30].

Building on these observations, this research offers theoretical and empirical contributions, as well as practical implications for sustainability education in HE. Theoretically, the research contributes to the theorizing of sustainability education by exploring undergraduate business student perceptions of SDG 13 integration at a UAE university [23]. It provides a fresh perspective by shifting the discourse away from institutional reporting and faculty-centric analyses to offer a richer academic discussion of SDG implementation in HEIs [8,31]. The findings also align with critiques on sustainability integration [30,32], highlighting systemic gaps that hinder transformative outcomes. Empirically, the research offers granular insights into student perceptions of SDG 13 integration [5]. It identifies strengths in policy coherence and active learning pedagogies [23,29] and gaps in applied climate–business linkages and career preparedness [5,8], pointing to curricular reforms that prioritize the “built-in” development of climate competency over the “bolt-on” approach [33] and emphasizing the importance of aligning curricula with national sustainability strategies to connect the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application [8,33]. Furthermore, establishing pedagogies that bridge climate literacy from theoretical to practical business applications also emerges as essential, with active learning pedagogies outperforming traditional lectures in equipping students with sustainability competencies [16,18,29,33], ensuring that climate education does not remain merely an empty word but empowers students to lead in a decarbonizing economy [8,16,18,33]. Furthermore, these findings have practical implications for managing perceptual differences among students. While the development of interventions targeted at specific student groups remains underexplored in the literature [4], the student skepticism and neutrality found in the data reflect the need for differentiated approaches. For UAE HEIs to successfully integrate SDG 13, aligning curricula with national sustainability strategies [24,25] can ensure SDG 13 integration with business education that equips graduates to respond to regional environmental challenges [8,31].

This paper is organized as follows: following this Introduction, Section 2 reviews the literature on SDG integration in HE; Section 3 outlines Q-methodology; Section 4 presents and discusses the results; and Section 5 presents the conclusions, practical implications, and future research directions.

2. Literature Review

Being the environment that shapes future leaders, managers, and citizens, it is natural for HEIs to adopt sustainability education [5,34] and have a unique role in the SDGs by embedding sustainability into their curricula, operations, research, and community engagement [15]. Furthermore, this literature review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of how SDGs permeate through HEI curricula, focusing on the strategies implemented and the challenges faced. First, in Section 2.1, we will present the embedding of the SDGs in HEIs [11,35] and their crucial role in sustaining a socially just, economically viable, environmentally sustainable world and as the microcosm of a sustainable economy. We will present the importance of changing the pedagogies and some innovative ones, such as active learning, experiential learning, real-world case studies, and place-based learning, to empower students in addressing complex 21st-century challenges [16,18]. Then, in Section 2.2, we will describe the enablers and barriers in this integration process, arguing that the integration of the SDGs in HEIs only occurs when it is embedded across the whole institution [36,37]. Successful integration needs clear institutional policies and support, but significant barriers, such as financial constraints and teachers’ training, often hinder progress [23,33]. Finally, in Section 2.3, we will review the current literature concerning students’ perceptions of their university’s integration of the SDGs into their studies, emphasizing that students’ perceptions of the feasibility of sustainability in their institutions are a factor that influences their engagement with the SDGs [8,27].

2.1. Embedding Sustainability by HEIs

2.1.1. Institutional Waves Reinforcing Sustainability Integration

The urgency of sustainability challenges has highlighted the imperative of including sustainability in HEIs, particularly in management and BSs [5,33]. Its embedding with the SDGs into HEIs and BSs has been reinforced by successive institutional waves, which have strengthened the role of education in this process. These waves reflect changes in global priorities, pedagogy, and accountability mechanisms, shaping curricula, mindsets, and leadership programs. These waves end the current wave, placing HEIs as key players in tackling socioecological challenges, with implementation in BSs lagging behind and remaining within a traditional profit-centered perspective [8,10,12].

• The First Wave: Foundational Frameworks (1980s–1990s)

The first institutional wave was characterized by landmark reports that were a turning point in redefining the role of education in sustainability. The Brundtland Report (1987) introduced the concept of sustainable development as a global imperative, and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development’s Agenda 21 explicitly called for the reorientation of education to empower “future change agents” [5,11]. HEIs were regarded as key players in addressing socioecological challenges, with the implementation of this embedding still in its infancy. However, business education remained traditional and profit-centered [8,10,12].

• The Second Wave: Institutionalizing Sustainability in Management Education (2000s–2010s)

The 2000s saw targeted efforts to embed sustainability into business and management curricula. The UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) was a turning point, calling on BSs to link with the SDGs and train leaders to achieve a balance between economic and ethical objectives [5]. Concurrently, the UN Decade of Education of Sustainable Development (ESD) (2005–2014) sought to create cross-sector and empowering synergies, with a focus on participatory learning and societal engagement [11]. Accreditation bodies, such as the AACSB, updated their standards in 2013 to prioritize sustainability, compelling BSs to update their curricula and move from siloed to stakeholder-inclusive approaches [38]. These efforts were complemented by case studies demonstrating how HEIs have addressed sustainability responsibility and the common good [23,39].

• The Third Wave: Global Alignment and Competency-Based Education (2015–Present)

The 2015 UN SDGs provided a unifying framework for integration with explicit links to HEIs in all 17 goals, accelerating their integration [38,40]. This wave focused on transformative learning [30], with scholars advocating for sustainability competencies beyond theoretical knowledge [16,18]. Wiek et al. [41] outlined five core competencies—systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic, and interpersonal—that became foundational for SDG-aligned pedagogy [17]. They defined competence as “complexes of knowledge, skills, and attitudes” for successful problem solving in sustainability contexts [41]. UNESCO (2017) expanded the concept to include critical thinking, self-awareness, and integrated problem solving, framing sustainability as a holistic skill set. BSs have increasingly adopted experiential pedagogies, such as the WikiRate project, which develops students’ sustainability mindsets as students learn to embed knowledge, skills, and attitudes [19]. Similarly, Lozano et al. [18] showed that hybrid pedagogical approaches (universal, social, environmental) develop distinct competencies, with active learning methods outperforming traditional lecturing. However, issues remain: curricula lag behind societal shifts [42], and symbolic SDG adoption remains pervasive, especially in regions like the UAE [8].

• The Fourth Wave: Mindset Transformation and Generational Activism (2020s–Ongoing)

Sustainability across HEIs today focuses on cultivating sustainability mindsets—internalizing values, emotions, and purpose for behavioral shifts towards sustainability [5,32]. This wave responds to the demand of Generation Z for action-oriented education that addresses climate anxiety and social justice [43]. HEIs are urged to adopt “real-world pedagogies” that form a sustainability mindset [22,44], connecting classroom learning to community challenges [16,18]. This holistic approach engages students with real-world challenges and links academic concepts to contexts to develop learning and autonomy [16,22]. Sustainable HE must train students in self-reliance and responsibility to contribute to an ethical future [27], making education more meaningful for society [16]. For instance, international mobility has proven effective in advancing SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 8 (Decent Work) by fostering cross-cultural competencies [17]. BSs now prioritize transformative leadership, training students to navigate in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments through systems innovation and ethical decision making [27]. Accreditation bodies and rankings increasingly reward institutions that demonstrate measurable SDG impacts, incentivizing deeper integration [38].

These institutional waves illustrate the progression from conceptual frameworks to systemic, actionable, competency-driven education [17,18]. Early waves laid the normative groundwork, while later waves operationalized sustainability through accreditation, pedagogy, and generational engagement. However, gaps remain, such as resistance to curricular change, uneven global implementation, and the need for metrics to track mindset transformation [5]. Future waves must prioritize authentic integration—embedding sustainability across disciplines, fostering educator training [45], and aligning institutional policies with SDG accountability mechanisms [22]. As HEIs and BSs navigate these challenges, their roles as architects of a sustainable future remain unparalleled, demanding courage to redefine education beyond traditional paradigms.

2.1.2. State of the Art Through Systematic Literature Reviews

Emerging literature reviews, although still in the nascent stages, have systematically examined the post-UN decade of ESD progress in SDG integration across HEIs and BSs, coalescing around two thematic pillars: (1) sustainability curriculum content innovation and (2) sustainability competence development (see Table 1).

• Curriculum Content: Disciplinary Progress and Persistent Gaps

Recent analyses of sustainability integration across disciplines underscore management and business education [11,32,33,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Studies demonstrate that integration in BSs remains uneven [11]. While BSs have adopted the PRME to reconceptualize leadership paradigms [48], critics argue that tokenistic SDG alignment occurs through symbolic rather than substantive pedagogical reform [50]. The empirical literature reveals a disconnect between the global aspirations of the SDGs and their local and national implementations, leading to student skepticism about institutions’ genuine commitments to these goals [8,10,11,12,13]. Our study is pioneering in addressing this gap by analyzing whether SDG 13, focused on climate change, is integrated into the curriculum and pedagogies at a BS in Delta University within the UAE context, to determine if such integration is symbolic or substantive.

• Competence Development: From Knowledge to Transformative Action

Scholarship frames sustainability increasingly through a competency lens, emphasizing the interplay of knowledge (K), skills (S), attitudes (A), and behaviors (B) [17,19]. Studies highlight the essentiality of soft skills—such as systems thinking, ethical reasoning, and collaborative problem solving—to SDG implementation [51,52]. Theoretical links to applied learning are bridged by frameworks—e.g., Figueiró et al. [50]—that promote curricula connecting classroom concepts to the real world (e.g., climate action projects for SDG 13). Post-pandemic pedagogical shifts have accelerated digital tool adoption—e.g., e-learning platforms and AI-driven simulations—enhancing accessibility and engagement [22,39]. Open educational resources and interdisciplinary approaches—y e.g., data science—further democratize sustainability education across institutions [53].

Table 1. SLR papers on sustainability integration in HE.

Reference	Purpose	Num. Papers	Methodology
TOPIC 1: Sustainability Curriculum Content Innovation
Albuquerque and Gomes dos Santos [46]	Accounting education	56	Bibliometric, SLR
Avelar et al. [48]	PRME impact assessment	135	SLR
Boarin and Martínez-Molina [47]	Architectural curricula	111	Bibliometric
Halder et al. [54]	Open educational practices	42	SLR, conceptual
Klapper and Fayolle [32]	Entrepreneurship overlaps	N/A	SLR
Mokski et al. [55]	Interdisciplinarity	39	SLR
Rasuman and Astari [56]	Trends and topics	896	Bibliometric
Serafini et al. [37]	SDG implementation	45	SLR
Trevisan et al. [30]	Transformative learning	261	Bibliometric, SLR, case studies
Vargas-Merino et al. [33]	ESD in management and business	74	SLR
TOPIC 2: Sustainability Competence Development
Blanco-Portela et al. [57]	Drivers/Barriers	35	SLR
Kopnina [58]	SDG adoption	N/A	SLR
Figueiro et al. [50]	Sustainable framework in management	63	SLR, conceptual
Leal Filho et al. [53]	Data science	N/A	Bibliometric, case studies
Marin-Zapata et al. [51]	Soft skills and competencies	119	SLR
Mohammadi et al. [59]	Education factors	46	SLR, mixed-methods, conceptual
Narong [11]	ESD in management and business	861	Bibliometric, SLR
Obrecht et al. [60]	Assessment framework	N/A	Conceptual
Trevisan et al. [39]	Digital transformation	672	Bibliometric, SLR, content analysis
Tomassi et al. [52]	Competence framework	N/A	Conceptual
Yakar-Pritchard et al. [61]	Student knowledge	38	Conceptual

Table 1. SLR papers on sustainability integration in HE.

Reference	Purpose	Num. Papers	Methodology
TOPIC 1: Sustainability Curriculum Content Innovation
Albuquerque and Gomes dos Santos [46]	Accounting education	56	Bibliometric, SLR
Avelar et al. [48]	PRME impact assessment	135	SLR
Boarin and Martínez-Molina [47]	Architectural curricula	111	Bibliometric
Halder et al. [54]	Open educational practices	42	SLR, conceptual
Klapper and Fayolle [32]	Entrepreneurship overlaps	N/A	SLR
Mokski et al. [55]	Interdisciplinarity	39	SLR
Rasuman and Astari [56]	Trends and topics	896	Bibliometric
Serafini et al. [37]	SDG implementation	45	SLR
Trevisan et al. [30]	Transformative learning	261	Bibliometric, SLR, case studies
Vargas-Merino et al. [33]	ESD in management and business	74	SLR
TOPIC 2: Sustainability Competence Development
Blanco-Portela et al. [57]	Drivers/Barriers	35	SLR
Kopnina [58]	SDG adoption	N/A	SLR
Figueiro et al. [50]	Sustainable framework in management	63	SLR, conceptual
Leal Filho et al. [53]	Data science	N/A	Bibliometric, case studies
Marin-Zapata et al. [51]	Soft skills and competencies	119	SLR
Mohammadi et al. [59]	Education factors	46	SLR, mixed-methods, conceptual
Narong [11]	ESD in management and business	861	Bibliometric, SLR
Obrecht et al. [60]	Assessment framework	N/A	Conceptual
Trevisan et al. [39]	Digital transformation	672	Bibliometric, SLR, content analysis
Tomassi et al. [52]	Competence framework	N/A	Conceptual
Yakar-Pritchard et al. [61]	Student knowledge	38	Conceptual

2.2. Enablers of and Barriers to Sustainability Integration in HE

The integration of sustainability and the SDGs into HEIs and BSs is shaped by a complex interplay of enablers and barriers, which collectively determine the pace, depth, and effectiveness of curricular and institutional transformation. Drawing on recent scholarship, this section synthesizes these factors, highlighting their dual roles in advancing or hindering progress (see

Table 2. Enablers of and barriers to embedding sustainability in HE.

Idea	Enabler	Barrier	Source
New learning approaches	X	X	[16,18,23,24,33,39,45,47]
Interdisciplinary teaching	X	X	[33,47]
Institutional and management support	X	X	[12,17,33,47]
Stakeholder engagement	X	X	[30,49,57]
Teacher and staff skills and awareness	X	X	[23,33,47,64]
Student engagement	X	X	[12,30,35,65,66]
Cultural aspects	X	X	[33,47]
Curriculum design	X	X	[23,33,39,47,50]
Financial resources	X	X	[30,33,57]
Institutional culture	X	X	[23,47,50]
Leadership	X	X	[12,23,30,33,50,67]
Strategic planning	X	X	[50,67]
Technology and AI tools	X		[4,22,23,30,33,39]
Sustainability committee	X		[30]
Assessment and monitoring	X		[30,35]
Long-term vision	X		[30,48]
Experiential learning	X		[16,17,18,45,62,63,66]
Collaboration and networking	X		[4,11,30,39,48]
Dissonance with reality		X	[16,18,33,47]
Institutional inertia		X	[24,45]
Resistance to change		X	[16,24,30,45]
Lack of awareness		X	[12,33,35,68]
Inadequate practical pedagogies		X	[24,45,47]

).

2.2.1. Key Enablers of Sustainability Integration

The key enablers for transformative change to sustainable HE are grouped into four categories.

First, innovative pedagogies such as experiential learning, AI-driven tools, and interdisciplinary projects bridge theory (theoretical knowledge) and practice (real-world sustainability challenges). Place-based projects [16] and international exchange programs [17] foster SDG competencies such as systems thinking and ethical leadership, while digital platforms (e.g., e-learning modules) and open educational resources democratize access to sustainability education by ensuring accessibility [22,39,54]. Initiatives such as WikiRate illustrate how technology can enhance student engagement and help to develop critical sustainability competencies globally [19,44], amplified by AI-driven tools [22,23].

Second, strong institutional support and visionary leadership are fundamental for systemic change via governance structures, faculty development and training, strategic planning frameworks, and accreditation-based reforms [30,67]. HEIs with dedicated sustainability governance structures and committees report higher student competency development and stakeholder collaboration [23], alongside financial support for interdisciplinary training [11]. External triggers, like AACSB accreditation, incentivize integration through institutional standards [38].

Third, stakeholder collaboration and student activism create pressure for hands-on curricula. Generation Z’s climate literacy demands ethical, competency-based pedagogies [61]. Partnerships with industry and global networks like the PRME and Global Compact inject practicality and resources [11,49].

Finally, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches break disciplinary silos for holistic problem solving. Climate action integrated into business ethics [1,18] and mobility programs developing cross-cultural competencies [8,17] showcase this systemic integration. Together, these drivers—pedagogical innovation, institutional leadership, stakeholder engagement, and interdisciplinary rigor—forge synergistic pathways for graduate sustainability education.

2.2.2. Persistent Barriers to Systemic Integration

Despite progress, significant barriers persist in the systemic integration of sustainability in HE, clustering into four interrelated categories.

First, institutional inertia and fragmented leadership perpetuate resistance to change, such as the perseverance of legacy curricula privileging short-term economic metrics over SDG-aligned pedagogies [8,38]. Bureaucratic structural resistance and weak administrative priorities slow reforms [33,57], with only 34% of global BSs mainstreaming the SDGs in core courses [38].

Second, curricular and pedagogical barriers persist, as sustainability is “bolted on” via individuated, isolated, and ad hoc faculty efforts versus systemic redesign [11,12,30,50]. Lecture-dominant methods fail to nurture sustainability competencies [18], and faculty training and disciplinary silos stymie interdisciplinary collaboration [47,64]. For instance, a study across 32 HEIs revealed that 68% of faculty perceive sustainability as peripheral to their discipline [33].

Third, uneven stakeholder engagement and geographic imbalance exist. Student participation in curriculum co-creation is tokenistic, with limited involvement [12,65]. Geographic disparities persist, and Global South HEIs (e.g., Asian and African HEIs) remain under-represented in sustainability scholarship [4,8,69]. Regional differences exist even within contexts like UAE BSs, where SDG 8 remains symbolic in legacy pedagogies [8]. Transnational collaboration (e.g., PRME, Global Compact) and localized SDG frameworks are critical but underutilized [35,70], as with climate education tools [2]. Emerging research on SDG 13 integration highlights the urgency of climate education but underscores gaps in localized pedagogical tools [2].

Fourth, resource constraints and skill gaps exacerbate imbalances. Over 60% of faculty in developing regions report lacking institutional support for sustainability efforts [33], and financial and training limitations impede the adoption of AI and data science tools [23]. Cultural dissonance (e.g., imposed Western-centric SDG frameworks in the Global South) further strains implementation in resource-poor contexts [69,70].

2.2.3. Navigating Dualities for Transformative Change

The integration of sustainability into HEIs and BSs demands a nuanced balance between leveraging enablers and dismantling systemic barriers via four strategic imperatives. First, shifting from incremental to transformative leadership requires unifying, long-term institutional strategies with sustainability as a core value over short-term economic metrics, redefining the success criteria around SDG outcomes [12,66]. Second, pedagogical pluralism (hybrid approaches integrating universal, social, and environmental pedagogies) supports learner diversity and bridges disciplinary divides. For example, integrating climate action (SDG 13) into business ethics curricula strengthens systems thinking and ethical decision making [18]. Third, glocalizing the SDGs through contextualized frameworks (e.g., community-based SDG 8 initiatives in Asia/Global South) mitigates cultural dissonance and strengthens local relevance [8,35,70]. Fourth, investing in educator capacity (sustainability training/new technologies, e.g., AI simulations) closes skill gaps and enables transdisciplinary collaboration [22,45].

Ultimately, systemic integration hinges on aligning policies, pedagogies, and stakeholder engagement beyond symbolic compliance. Educators are critical in bridging classroom learning to societal challenges with personalized tools (e.g., artificial intelligence) [18,22], although longitudinal studies show that full integration requires 15–20 years of sustained investment in faculty development and student-centered assessment [40,71].

The next section analyzes empirical data on student perceptions and interrogates gaps between curricular intent and learner experience to identify pathways by which to amplify enablers, address barriers, and accelerate the transition from theory to practice.

2.3. Bridging Theory and Practice Towards Student-Centered Empirical Insights

The interplay of enablers and barriers highlights a central tenet—that sustainable transformation in HE is not only about institutional policies and pedagogical innovation but also about understanding the lived experiences of students, who are ultimately the actors and agents of change. Although administrative frameworks and technological tools enable integration, they are only effective if and when students understand, utilize, and enact sustainability principles. If we are to mobilize the student voice as a catalyst, there are three key imperatives. First, Generation Z-sensitive curricular alignment with climate literacy demands, education for sustainable development models, and urgent ethics through participatory design will be crucial [61,68]. Second, conversations about hidden curricula, such as the campus culture, instructor behavior, and assessment, are necessary to shape sustainability mindsets beyond the classroom [8,42,44,72]. Lastly, longitudinal metrics of impact are necessary, because student perceptions offer real-time indications of multi-decadal integration processes [71] that can guide adaptive strategies in the face of slow institutional change.

These imperatives highlight the need for an empirical assessment of student perspectives to better evaluate the transformative potential of sustainability education. The following section investigates how students perceive curricular content, teaching approaches, and institutional commitment.

Table 3. Empirical research on student perceptions of sustainability education in HEIs using surveys.

Reference	Purpose	Sample	Country
TOPIC 1: Sustainability Curriculum Content
Ahmad et al. [73] *b	CoDesignS framework	5 1	UK, Venezuela, UAE
Almusalami et al. [26] *a,b,c	Sustainability awareness	367	UAE
Araneo [36] a,b,c	ESD course content	737(13); 3 HEIs	Sweden, US, Canada, Australia, Malaysia
Martínez-Bravo et al. [34] a	Factor impacts	432 2	Spain
TOPIC 2: Sustainability Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Behaviors
Akhtar et al. [74] a	Pro-environmental behavior	291	Pakistan
Al-Naqbi and Alshannag [75] *a	Sustainability KAB	823	UAE
Al-Tkhayneh and Ashour [76] *a	Environmental attitudes	1310	UAE
Avelar and Farina [72] a	Self-reported behavior (KAB)	759 2	Brazil, USA, Germany, Spain
Avelar et al. [5] a	SDGs in management (KAB)	283	USA
Baroudi and ElSayary [29] *a,b	Educational innovations	44	UAE
Chuvieco et al. [77] *a	Factors in habits	1011	Spain, Brazil, UAE
De la Torre et al. [17] a	Mobility impact (KSA)	N/A; 32 HEIs	Belgium, Greece, Italy, USA, Canada
Elmassri et al. [8] *a	SDG 8 integration	124 2	UAE
Ferreira et al. [64] a	Sustainable behavior	77	Portugal
Mohammadi et al. [59] a	University sustainability	289	Iran
Null and Asirvatham [43] a	Sustainability KAB	291	USA
Núñez-Tabales et al. [78]	SDG entrepreneurship (KAB)	631 2	Spain
Ovais [69] a	Consciousness and behavior	205	India
Radwan and Khalil [24] *a	Sustainability KSA	200	UAE
Ribeiro et al. [79] a	Green campus initiatives	1013	Brazil
Romdhane et al. [80] *a	Knowledge–intentions	221	UAE
Takshe et al. [81] *a	Pro-environmental behavior	50	UAE
Zwicle and Jones [82] a	Knowledge and attitudes	N/A	USA
TOPIC 3: Sustainability Competency Development
Adib [62] a	Experimental learning attitudes	262	Egypt
Alalawi and Omar [83] a	Pro-environmental behavior	224	Bahrain
Alm et al. [63] a	SDG awareness–knowledge	742	Sweden
Anapey [84] b	Indigenous practices in ESD	11	Ghana
Angelaki et al. [35] a,b	Sustainability in ICT curricula	52	Greece
Boarin et al. [85]	Sustainability in architecture	300	Oceania, Europe, North America
Dev et al. [86] *a	Inclusive education	245 1	UAE
Jones et al. [27] a,b	Perspectives on SDGs	177	Japan
Lozano et al. [18] a	Competences and pedagogies	3720; 17 HEIs	Worldwide
Uddin [45] a	Environmental education	N/A	Bangladesh
Wersun et al. [19] a,b	Sustainability learning (KSA)	549	Australia, Colombia, Austria, UK, South Korea

(*) UAE Context; KAB: Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior; KSA: Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes; (¹): Students + Others: Faculty Staff, Deans, Managers; (²): BS: Business Student; (^a): Survey, Closed Questions (Quantitative Research); (^b): Interview and Survey, Open Questions (Qualitative Research); (^c) Case Studies.

synthesizes survey-based perceptions of these three topics into diagnostic measures of the disjunct between policy and experience. By centering student voices, the analysis highlights pathways to dismantle barriers, amplify enablers, and accelerate the shift from symbolic tacking to genuine, learner-driven transformation.

2.3.1. Global Trends in Student Perceptions of Sustainability Integration in HE

The journey to integrate sustainability into HEIs requires centering the student voice as a stakeholder and change agent [68], with their perceptions of curricula, institutional commitment, and the hidden curriculum providing an important measure of implementation success [42,72]. Generation Z’s climate activism further cements this imperative, challenging the HE community to be as action-oriented as their values—centering action-oriented climate literacy [61].

Empirical research across diverse geographies reveals critical insights into how students perceive sustainability integration in HEIs, underscoring the urgent need for the improved integration of sustainability into curricula and practices [34,36]. Studies demonstrate a persistent gap between institutional commitments to the SDGs and students’ experiential realities. For instance, in Spain, 78% of students report sustainability as a curricular priority, yet only 34% report acquiring actionable competencies [34]. Among cross-national comparisons, pedagogical approaches vary in high-income countries like Sweden, emphasizing a transformative approach—e.g., place-based climate projects—versus middle-income countries’ common pattern of defining sustainability as environmentalism only, at the expense of socioeconomic dimensions [36,72].

Globally, students argue for contextual and practice-based approaches, finding greater curricular value in courses addressing local challenges such as urban resilience (Australia), ethical supply chains (Malaysia), and Indigenous resource governance (Canada), rather than abstract global frameworks [18,36]. This aligns with Generation Z’s preference for pedagogies incorporating digital tools such as AI simulations for SDG 13-related scenarios, coupled with community and place-based engagement [61]. At the same time, institutional inertia and faculty skill gaps slow innovation, as evidenced by 62% of European HEIs relying on lecture-based methods—deemed the least effective by students for developing strategic sustainability competencies [18].

2.3.2. The UAE’s Sustainability HE Landscape

The UAE is strategically positioning itself as a trailblazer in sustainability education, with Vision 2030 and its international positioning in COP28 [87] leading the way for cross-disciplinary work on renewable energy and sustainable urbanism through institutions like Zayed University, the Masdar Institute, and the UAE Ministry of Climate Change and Environment [80,87]. These efforts reflect a deliberate transition from an oil-dependent economy to a knowledge-driven, sustainability-oriented paradigm [87,88,89,90,91].

While this has yielded some strategic efforts, a paradox exists: empirical research highlights that, while most students in the UAE exhibit high awareness of sustainability concepts, only a few perceive that they have the necessary competencies and skills to apply SDG principles to real-world business scenarios [8,26].

This disparity is reflective of systemic deficiencies in policy translation to practice, compounded by the cultural–contextual dissonance between rigid, lecture-based pedagogies and dynamic SDG-integrated styles [24]. Legacy fossil fuel economic narratives make curricular rhetoric out-of-step with regional industrial realities.

A technocentric bias further skews these efforts: while HEIs prioritize AI-driven energy systems [90], the scant presence of social equity and governance dimensions is evident (e.g., very few courses on ethical labor, inclusive governance [75]). This is compounded by faculty readiness, with only 28% of educators reporting confidence in delivering transdisciplinary sustainability content [21], and the scarce adoption of frameworks like the PRME (under 20% of HEIs) [29,73]. Institutional inertia, through rigid curricula and fragmented stakeholder collaboration [24,25], contrasts with a generational shift in contemporary students, where 67% prioritize ethical over profit-centric models [8]. While high-profile events like Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week inject much-needed engagement [89], seminars see low participation, and weak interdisciplinary bridges remain underdeveloped, illustrating untapped potential.

Globally, the UAE is indicative of high-income countries prioritizing pedagogy over research productivity [91], yet its unique context calls for a strategy that blends indigenous knowledge and SDGs [89]. Herein, experiences and global parallels (e.g., Spain showing a similar awareness–competency gap [34]) expose the imperative for pedagogies that bridge awareness and competencies, balancing experiential rigor over symbolic compliance.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Method

3.1.1. Research Context

Since its establishment in 1976 as the UAE’s first national university (https://www.uaeu.ac.ae/en/about/overview.shtml (accessed on 4 August 2025)), Delta University has grown to be a research-intensive institution, with 17,500+ students (76% female, 85% Emirati) and global recognition (THE #261). Delta drives sustainability through its Roadmap for COP28 and Beyond and aligns with the UAE Net Zero 2050 goals. Initiatives include partnerships for solar energy, plastic recycling programs, and the Abu Dhabi Family Business Index to assess corporate sustainability. Delta’s research excellence (288 patents, 43% of publications) addresses sustainability in water, energy, and food security. Collaborations with the Ministry of Climate Change and ADAFSA inform policies for the UAE’s SDGs. Delta’s SDG Research Program supports UAE Voluntary National Reviews (VNR), published annually since 2021. Academically, Delta offers a minor in Climate Change and three sustainability-focused Master’s programs and integrates the SDGs across disciplines (e.g., Climate Change Economics in Business). Delta’s Sustainability Leaders Program engages youth through workshops and SDG course mapping. Delta ranks in the THE Impact Rankings for 10 SDGs and institutionalizes sustainability through research, education, and community partnerships to shape the UAE’s green future.

3.1.2. Q-Methodology Approach

Q-methodology provides an alternative to Likert-scale surveys in establishing perceptions of complex phenomena, such as climate change integration in HE, while avoiding social desirability bias and skewed distributions [8]. This mixed method relies on the factor analysis of quantitative data, followed by qualitative interpretation [28,92], developed by William Stephenson in 1935 [93]. Participants rank statements representing the full spectrum of perspectives, allowing researchers to identify common and divergent views in small samples [8,94]. Unlike correlational studies that produce large datasets, Q-methodology values depth over generalizability [95,96].

Q-methodology is increasingly applicable to a nuanced topic like sustainability education. For example, Q-methodology has been used to explore pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the SDGs [97], institutional SDG priorities [98], university educators’ perceptions of pedagogical change [96], embedding sustainability in HEIs [98], pro-environmental behavior [81], and business students’ perceptions of SDG 8 integration [8]. In engineering education, the method has been used to identify competencies for engineering students [99], perceptions of the occupation of entry-level chemical engineers [100,101], well-being in problem-based learning [102], and integrative trends in environmental research [95].

In climate change education, Q-methodology provides an understanding of how students prioritize climate knowledge and can be used to design curricula and pedagogy. By spotlighting gaps and barriers in sustainability integration, Q-methodology enables interventions to meet the expectations of learners [8,81]. This study uses Q-methodology as a means to categorize HE undergraduate perceptions of climate change integration, with the goal of guiding climate-informed HE reforms.

3.1.3. Research Design Q-Methodology

This study employs Q-methodology, a mixed-methods approach to systematically investigating and quantifying individuals’ subjectivity and diverse viewpoints [28,94]. It explores perceptions by combining qualitative richness with statistical rigor, uncovering shared subjective perspectives and mitigating the socially desirable responding often seen with Likert scales [8]. The five-step process (Q-set construction, Q-sorting, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of factors) [28,96,103] helps to explore the perceptions of individuals regarding the integration of SDG 13 in HE [103].

The initial process of Q-set construction and refinement began with concourse development, involving compiling a comprehensive collection of statements representing conceivable opinions about the research topic [8,93,94]. This was achieved through an extensive literature review and theoretical grounding related to SDG 13 integration in HE. While initial concourses are often large [95], Q-set construction involved meticulous reduction and refinement to select a smaller, representative, and differentiable set of statements [8,93,94,95,100]. The initial Q-set of 15 statements was crafted through a deductive–inductive iterative process based on a literature review and theoretical grounding [96,100,103]. This iterative development requires researcher expertise and reflexivity towards their subjectivity to capture diverse perspectives [95,96,97,99] and capture all different types of perspectives [96,97]. To enhance the validity and clarity and avoid redundancy, these 15 statements underwent rigorous iteration and refinement [96,100,102]. This process involved peer review by two expert colleagues at the university and feedback from 10 students, who assessed their clarity and meaningfulness, ensuring understandability and relevance to the target population [8,96,100,102]. This careful, multi-stage process led to the final Q-set being organized into 11 statements, which captured the core viewpoints relevant to the study’s research question, making them highly differentiated for ranking [100,102]. (Due to space constraints, this initial questionnaire with 15 questions, which differed from the final version after review by two experts and 10 students, is not included but can be provided upon request to the authors.)

Participants completed an online Q-sort using the “free sort” method to rank the 11 statements from strongly disagree (−3) to strongly agree (+3) [8]. This type of flexible approach minimizes social desirability bias since the respondent is forced to prioritize the statements based on their subjective views and not categorize sharp-cut words [94,97]. Statements in the same column of the grid receive the same scores, which ensures that the relative rankings are preserved [92].

Prior to data collection, ethical approval was meticulously secured from the host institution’s relevant ethics committee [8,81,96,97,98,100,102]. This rigorous process ensured that all research protocols adhered to established ethical guidelines, safeguarding participants’ rights and welfare [8]. Participants subsequently were invited to engage with a digital platform, where they received standardized instructions designed to facilitate their subjective interpretations, a core tenet of Q-methodology that reveals individuals viewpoints through systematic rank ordering [28,94]. Participants ranked statements according to their perceived importance to SDG 13 integration, ensuring alignment with personal and educational priorities [8].

To ensure informed and voluntary participation, each prospective participant was provided with a comprehensive information and consent form [99,102]. This form clearly elucidated the study’s objectives, procedures, and data management strategies, allowing individuals to make an informed decision regarding their involvement [99]. Explicit consent was obtained from all participants prior to their engagement in the Q-sorting activity [8,81,102]. Furthermore, to uphold the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, all collected data were anonymized [8,81,102], and individuals were explicitly informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any point without penalty [8]. This commitment to confidentiality is particularly pertinent in Q-methodology studies, which, by design, typically involve smaller, purposively selected participant groups to explore diverse subjective viewpoints in depth, rather than for statistical generalization to a larger population [8,81,95,96,97,100,101]. Adherence to these rigorous ethical protocols ensures both participant protection and the methodological integrity inherent in Q-methodological research [102].

The Q-sort data were analyzed with principal component factor analysis (PCA) and rotated with the Varimax method to find patterns among participants. The participants were treated as variables and the Q-sort items as cases [104]. An initial eight factors emerged from the statistical analysis. The subsequent decision to retain and interpret only two factors was based on a combination of rigorous statistical criteria and paramount theoretical significance, aiming to identify the most informative and distinct subjective viewpoints [8,28,81,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102]. Specifically, the two-factor solution was selected based on eigenvalues (>1.0) indicating statistical strength, explanatory power, scree plots (see Appendix A: Scree Plot), and interpretability [28]. Additionally, the chosen two-factor solution accounted for a substantial portion of the total study variance, capturing primary patterns of subjectivity efficiently [28,94]. Moreover, the factor loading of the statements was set to >±0.40 to determine the significant statements, indicating a clear, shared subjective perspective [28,94,97]. The normalized Q-sort scores of the statements, ranging from −3 to +3, were used to rank the statements by their salience in each factor [97]. However, in Q-methodology, factor selection prioritizes theoretical significance and interpretability over mere statistical strength [28,94]. Even if a factor meets statistical criteria (e.g., eigenvalue > 1.00 or high explained variance), it is not retained if it lacks a coherent narrative, makes other viewpoints less distinct, or offers no new insights [8,28,94,95].

Factors were interpreted by consensus and distinguishing statements according to factor loadings [94]. Consensus statements informed shared priorities across participants, and distinguishing statements illuminated unique perspectives for each factor [8,97]. This dual-lens approach enabled the exploration of how students perceive climate education integration, bridging theoretical frameworks with empirical subjectivity.

Blending systematic design with participant-driven subjectivity, this Q-methodology study illuminates the dynamics of sustainability HE and offers actionable insights for curriculum reform. Furthermore, while the survey’s results provide a broad overview of students’ perceptions, delivering broad quantitative data, Q-methodology was then employed to explore nuanced, subjective viewpoints, offering in-depth insights into specific perceptions and attitudes, moving beyond the limitations of traditional Likert scales in understanding why individuals hold certain views [8,28,94,96,100]. Thus, the two data sources were not integrated in their analysis but rather served complementary roles: the survey informed the Q-methodology design, which then yielded distinct, in-depth perspectives on collective opinions [102].

3.1.4. Sample Characteristics

Using Google Forms, the survey was administrated online in English. The data collection period was from December 2024 to February 2025. After excluding missing responses and outliers [8], a total of 137 respondents were finally considered, corresponding to five fields of study: Finance and Banking (39.42%), Accounting (29.93%), Business Administration (14.60%), Economics (12.41%), and Statistics and Data Analysis (3–65%). Of these, 77.37% were females aged 17 to 23, reflecting the university’s demographic composition of 75.5% female and 24.5% male students. This suggests that the sample is representative, although it may limit broader generalization. Additionally, over 73% of students had taken sustainability courses, likely enhancing their understanding of SDG 13 [5]. However, only 29.23% participated in student associations, which are crucial for engaging with the SDGs and learning the PRME. These associations allow students to conduct research and develop transdisciplinary educational contexts, complementing the formal curriculum with an informal or hidden one [105].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Overview of Results

The findings are based on a voluntary survey sent to Delta University students (n = 137), who completed the Q-sort using the “PQMethod” software (KADE 3.1), a specialized software program for Q-methodology analysis. Centroid extraction is the most used method in Q-studies and was used in this study by testing extraction and rotation methods iteratively [8].

Eight factors initially emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1 [95]. However, in the principal component analysis, the first two factors explained 79% of the total variance (65%, 8%, respectively), meeting the threshold for explanatory strength [28]. Although the variation explained by the eight factors was 75%, the last six factors lacked interpretative clarity and defining variables [106]. Following the precedent established in Q-methodology studies, we decided to retain two factors because the sum of the explained variances was above 50% and the other factors did not have a significant number of defining variables [8,101,102]. Additionally, the research team achieved a consensus on the most informative and discernible subjective patterns relevant to the research question [96,99,102]. The two-factor solution was chosen as it provided the most insightful and parsimonious representation of student perceptions. This approach balances statistical rigor with practical interpretability, aligning with best practices in sustainability education research.

Factor 1 includes 32 participants (25.5% of the sample), 65.5% (p < 0.05) of which exhibit significant loadings. Factor 2 has 13 participants (9.5% of the sample) and 26.5% are flagged members. In addition, the interfactor correlations were low to moderate, representing distinct perceptual groups.

Table 4. Factor characteristics.

	Factor 1	Factor 2
No. of Defining Variables	32	13
Avg. Rel. Coef.	0.8	0.8
Composite Reliability	0.992	0.981
S.E. of Factor Z-scores	0.089	0.138

shows the factor descriptions.

Factor loadings were deemed significant at the 10% level [8]. In order to confirm the validity of the study, statements were retained only if their loadings exceeded the 0.5 threshold, with the significant statements being marked with asterisks [107]. Varimax rotation, chosen for its balance of simplicity and analytical rigor [108], clarified the factor structures while maximizing variance distribution.

Table 4 also shows that the composite reliability of the three factors exceeded 90%, surpassing the 70% benchmark [109] and confirming the robust internal consistency. Factor arrays—weighted averages of statement scores within each factor—were generated to represent participants’ collective viewpoints [92,94]. These arrays, visualized in

Table 5. Composite Q-sort for Factor 1.

−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
** > Q9. SDG 13 is not very important in my discipline…	Q8. SDG 13 is just a concept used by the business world…	Q2. Promote mechanisms to raise capacity for effective climate…	** > Q1. Integrate climate change measures into national policies…	Q4. Environmental interdisciplinarity education with a focus on eco-justice…	Q3. Use active learning, virtual and online techniques…	Q10. Integrating SDG 13 into education in my…
** < Q7. It is not very practical to apply SDG 13 to real-world…	** < Q5. Systems thinking—that is, the ability to analyze complex…		** > Q6. Anticipatory thinking—that is, the ability to understand…			Q11. Integrating SDG 13 into my discipline will be…

Note: ** Distinguishing statement at p < 0.01; > z-Score for the statement is higher than in all other factors; < z-Score for the statement is lower than in all other factors.

and

Table 6. Composite Q-sort for Factor 2.

−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
** < Q1. Integrate climate change measures into national policies…	Q8. SDG 13 is just a concept used by the business world for promotion…	Q2. Promote mechanisms to raising capacity for effective climate change …	** > Q7. It is not very practical to apply SDG 13 to real-world business	Q4. Environmental interdisciplinarity education with a focus on eco-justice and community…	Q3. Use active learning, virtual and online techniques…	Q10. Integrating SDG 13 into education in my…
** < Q9. SDG 13 is not very important in my discipline…	** < Q6. Anticipatory thinking—that is, the ability to understand…		** > Q5. Systems thinking—that is, the ability to analyze complex…			Q11. Integrating SDG 13 into my discipline will be…

Note: ** Distinguishing statement at p < 0.01; > z-Score for the statement is higher than in all other factors; < z-Score for the statement is lower than in all other factors.

, provided a narrative framework for the interpretation of distinct perspectives [102]. These tables display a range of statements ranked from −3 to +3, indicating varying degrees of agreement or disagreement, to understand the predominant perspectives and areas of consensus or contention [8]. This methodological rigor ensured both statistical validity and interpretative clarity, aligning with best practices in Q-methodology research.

Table 5 presents the composite Q-sort for Factor 1, illustrating participants’ views on integrating SDG 13 in HE. It shows strong support for integrating SDG 13 into education, highlighting benefits (Q10: +3, Q11: +3) and the use of active learning (Q3: +2). However, there is skepticism about its practical application in real-world scenarios (Q7: −1, Q9: −3) and its role as a promotional concept (Q8: −2). Distinguishing statements emphasize the importance of systems and anticipatory thinking (Q5: −1, Q6: 0) and critical views on integrating climate change measures into national policies (Q1: 0). This reflects diverse opinions, underscoring the need for effective integration strategies.

Table 6 identifies key areas where this group’s views diverge from those of Factor 1, providing a comprehensive understanding of the diversity in student perceptions. Table 6 presents the composite Q-sort for Factor 2, showcasing participants’ perspectives on integrating SDG 13 in HE. It indicates strong support for using active learning and interdisciplinary approaches (Q3: +2, Q4: +1) and highlights the benefits of integrating SDG 13 into education (Q10: +3, Q11: +3). However, there is skepticism about the practical application of SDG 13 in real-world contexts (Q1: 0) and its perceived role as a promotional tool (Q8: −2). Distinguishing statements indicate critical views on climate change measures in national policies (Q1: −3) and highlight the importance of anticipatory and systems thinking (Q5: −1, Q6: −2). This reflects diverse opinions and emphasizes the need for practical integration strategies.

Table 7. Percentages of Q-sort values.

Value	Student Perception by Statement												General Perception
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	Total (%)
−3 (Not at all)	2.92	2.19	2.19	1.46	2.19	1.46	7.30	3.65	8.76	0.00	0.73	2.99	10.76%	Negative
−2	2.19	4.38	1.46	5.11	2.19	2.19	5.11	7.30	5.84	1.46	1.46	3.52
−1	3.65	2.92	5.84	3.65	2.19	2.92	9.49	2.92	7.30	2.92	2.92	4.25
0 (Neutral)	27.01	32.12	23.36	29.20	33.58	32.85	37.96	39.42	35.77	35.77	35.77	32.97	32.97%	Neutral
+1	24.09	18.98	17.52	21.17	26.28	21.17	13.14	15.33	10.95	14.60	18.25	18.31	56.27%	Positive
+2	18.25	18.98	19.71	16.06	11.68	13.87	8.76	15.33	10.95	18.98	12.41	15.00
+3 (Great extent)	21.90	20.44	29.93	23.36	21.90	25.55	18.25	16.06	20.44	26.28	28.47	22.96
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

presents a detailed breakdown of student opinions on SDG 13 integration in HE, with percentages of the Q-sort values for each question (Q1 to Q11). The table reveals a complex landscape of students’ perceptions, with 56.27% of students expressing positive views, 10.76% negative, and nearly 33% maintaining neutral opinions. This polarization underscores the need for targeted interventions to address knowledge gaps and engage the neutral group in climate action initiatives.

Positive perceptions are most prominent. Students show strong support for integrating climate action measures into national policies (Q1: 21.90% +3, 18.25% +2, and 24.09% +1) and employing active learning and problem-based pedagogies (Q3: 29.93% +3). Additionally, they recognize the positive role of SDG 13 in education and its future career relevance (Q10: 26.28%, Q11: 28.47% +3), underscoring the long-term impact of sustainability education.

Negative perceptions are particularly noticeable in some questions. Criticism focuses on the practical applicability of SDG 13 in business (Q7: 7.30% −3, 5.11% −2, and 9.49% −1) and its perceived use as a promotional tool (Q8: 3.65% −3, 7.30% −2, and 2.92% −1). Concerns about discipline-specific relevance (Q9: 8.76% −3, 5.84% −2, and 7.30% −1) further highlight skepticism about contextual integration.

Additionally, a significant portion of students remain neutral (32.97% global; 21.33% content theme; 16.83% knowledge and skills theme; 48.8% awareness and attitude theme), particularly regarding SDG 13’s role in business practices and education (Q8: 39.42%; Q9: 35.77%, Q10/Q11: 35.77%). This neutrality suggests ambivalence or insufficient engagement, highlighting an opportunity for HEIs to deepen curricular and extracurricular climate literacy initiatives to enhance students’ engagement and awareness around climate action.

Overall, the data reflect substantial positive sentiment towards certain aspects of SDG 13 integration, with an overall positive perception (values +1, +2, +3), reaching 56.27%. However, it also highlights areas needing improvement, given the 10.76% of negative perceptions and 32.97% of neutral perceptions. The presence of these negative and neutral perceptions reveals critical gaps and points to the necessity of a more comprehensive and engaging approach in embedding climate action into HE curricula.

The results suggest that Delta University students recognize the importance of climate action (SDG 13) and presumably its adoption in formal curricula, which will help them to become responsible leaders in the future [5,17,19,27]. However, divergences in perceptions—similar to the global literature [8,72]—show the fragmented adoption of climate education. Positive perceptions are more evident in policy integration and active learning (Q1, Q3), yet skepticism is present in practical business application (Q7–Q9) and neutral perceptions are evident for career relevance (Q10–Q11). Such polarization is due to the lack of transformative integration [30,32,66], and greater integration would help to reduce such negative and neutral perceptions among students.

The observed negative neutrality among students can be attributed to three main issues: curriculum design flaws, student disengagement, and epistemological uncertainty. Curriculum design often isolates sustainability, failing to integrate it across disciplines, which limits students’ understanding of and critical reflection on climate–business intersections [11,35,85]. This is compounded by student disengagement, where low initial awareness and a perceived lack of agency hinder active participation [23,35,48]. Additionally, epistemological uncertainty arises from difficulties in grasping complex climate–business relationships beyond superficial knowledge [33]. Addressing this requires Mezirow’s transformative learning, which challenges students’ worldviews to foster deeper engagement and a sense of agency [32]. This shift necessitates active, experiential, and problem-based pedagogies that bridge the theory–practice gap, cultivating critical thinking and responsibility for a sustainable future [48,62,66]. By engaging students’ cognitive, practical, and affective domains, these pedagogies promote not only cognitive understanding but also practical skills and ethical awareness, empowering students to critically evaluate global challenges and contribute to effective climate action [32].

To address these gaps, three key priorities are suggested. First, reinforce practical linkages by aligning SDG 13 curricula with industry needs through internships, case studies, and partnerships to address disconnects in business relevance (Q7–Q9). Second, enhance pedagogical innovation (e.g., AI) through the increased adoption of problem-based learning and interdisciplinary frameworks to reduce skepticism and engage neutral stakeholders (Q8–Q11). Finally, implement tailored communication strategies that highlight the career benefits and ethical imperatives of climate literacy to turn ambivalent students into advocates.

By adopting these context-sensitive design steps, Delta University can foster a sustainability-oriented mindset [19,27,33,44], ensuring that climate education translates into actionable competences and leadership in a decarbonizing global economy.

4.2. Students’ Perspectives

Table 8. Distinguishing statements for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statement	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
Disagreement
1	Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.	0	−0.24 *	−2	−0.91 *
5	Systems thinking—that is, the ability to analyze complex systems, contexts, relationships, and phenomena, dealing with uncertainty and the application of modeling (qualitative and quantitative) to identify possible paths and solutions regarding the SDG 13 phenomena.	−2	−1.10 *	0	−0.19 *
6	Anticipatory thinking—that is, the ability to understand, analyze, evaluate, and predict scenarios for the future (possible, probable, and desirable), assess their possible consequences, and deal with risks, changes, and impacts between different generations, regarding the SDG 13 phenomena.	0	−0.24 *	−2	−0.91 *
7	It is not practical to apply SDG 13 to real-world business.	−3	−1.26 *	0	0.59 *
9	SDG 13 is not very important in my discipline because we should focus more on economic than social issues.	−3	−1.10 *	−3	−1.54 *

Both the factor Q-sort value (Q-SV) and the Z-score (Z-SCR) are shown. (p < 0.05; an asterisk (*) indicates significance at p < 0.01).

and

Table 9. Consensus statements for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statement	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
Agreement
3	Use of active learning, virtual and online techniques, case studies, interdisciplinary team teaching, mind and concept maps, projects or problem-based learning based on real-world bases or classes taught by professors from different fields of study collaborating together.	2	1.05 *	2	0.96 *
4	Environmental interdisciplinary education with a focus on eco-justice and community and provided by people with experience and knowledge of taking care of the environment.	1	1.00 *	1	0.80 *
10	Integrating SDG 13 into education in my discipline helps us to play a positive role in the world around us.	3	1.33 *	3	1.31 *
11	Integrating SDG 13 into my discipline will be beneficial in my future career.	3	1.19 *	3	1.17 *
Disagreement
2	Promote mechanisms to raise capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and Small Island Developing States, including focusing on women, youth, and local and marginalized communities.	−1	−0.34 *	−1	−0.52 *
8	SDG 13 is just a concept used by the business world for promotion and to create a public image, because a truly decent work environment and business are incompatible.	−2	−0.74 *	−2	−0.62 *

Both the factor Q-sort value (Q-SV) and the Z-score (Z-SCR) are shown. (p < 0.05; an asterisk (*) indicates significance at p < 0.01).

show the distinguishing and consensus statements, respectively, for Factors 1 and 2, presented by agreement and disagreement [101]. All statements have statistically significant Q-SV and Z-scores, indicating differentiating or unifying value [8] regarding the extent to which they felt that they received content related to SDG 13 topics in Delta’s education.

4.2.1. Distinguishing Statements

In Table 8, Factors 1 and 2 seem to diverge in market perceptions of SDG 13 integration, were Factor 2 strongly disagrees with the incorporation of climate measures in national policies (Q1:Q-SV = −2), against Factor 1’s neutrality. This is congruent with the critique regarding the disconnect between global frameworks and the local implementation of institutional programs, leading to skepticism about institutional commitment to engagement with climate change [8].

Similarly, Factor 1’s rejection of systems thinking (Q5: Q-SV = −2), while Factor 2 remains neutral, reflects persistent gaps in teaching complex problem-solving skills. Additionally, Factor 2’s rejection of anticipatory thinking (Q6: Q-SV = −2) reveals gaps in teaching complex, future-oriented competencies, suggesting inadequate preparation for future climate scenarios, a concern that stresses the need for foresight pedagogies—a weakness that is endemic to siloed curricula. These concerns and weaknesses were raised by Cho et al. [16], Elmassri et al. [8], De la Torre et al. [17], Lozano et al. [18], Podgórska and Zdonek [110], and Wersun et al. [19].

The contrast expressed in Q7 (practical SDG 13 application) is particularly telling and highlights experiential learning differences: Factor 1 (Q-SV = −3, strongly rejects real-life applicability) conveys confidence in real-world SDG 13 feasibility, whereas Factor 2’s neutrality indicates limited exposure to real-life applicability, a point raised by Cho et al. [16], Leal Filho et al. [23], and Lozano et al. [18]. Notably, both factors unanimously reject the prioritization of economics over the climate (Q9: Q-SV = −3), countering narratives suggesting that business education prioritizes profit over sustainability [8,10,12,35].

4.2.2. Consensus Statements

Table 9 shows the consensus for both factors, illustrating the shared priorities and critiques among both factors. Strong agreement in shared priorities emerges in active learning (Q3: Q-SV = 2) and eco-justice education (Q4: Q-SV = 1), both of which support the efficacy of interdisciplinary and participatory pedagogies, as seen in De la Torre et al. [17] and Podgórska and Zdonek [110]. However, the moderate support for Q4 (Q-SV = 1) reflects gaps in centering marginalized voices, mirroring Elmassri et al.’s [8] call for decolonialization.

The highest agreement regarding SDG 13’s added value for education and careers (Q10-Q11: Q-SV = 3) aligns with its relevance to employability and society, in line with Jones et al. [27], who associate sustainability education with better career-readiness and society impacts. This higher agreement endorses the relevance of SDG 13 in curricula, in contrast to perceptions that the academic goals and aspirations of students are disconnected [5].

Conversely, both factors reject tokenistic climate planning for marginalized communities (Q2: Q-SV = −1), perhaps conveying the ongoing neglect of intersectional equity in climate education—a vital missing link identified by Leal Filho et al. [23]. The strong rejection of Q8 (Q-SV = −2) again shows that students are aware of corporate greenwashing, in line with scholars who warn about superficial SDG adoption in business contexts ([8,10,12,13], among others).

These results align with prior research on the merits of active pedagogies [16,18], while highlighting unresolved challenges, especially in systemic and anticipatory thinking [17,19]. The repudiation of tokenistic climate planning (Q2) and corporate greenwashing (Q8) signals the urgency with which equity and accountability must be factored into sustainability education [62]. While success in pedagogical innovation and student buy-in is apparent, structural gaps must be addressed with bolder alignment with the equity and complexity mandates of SDG 13. Transformative frameworks are needed to bridge these gaps [30,66], ensuring that curricula transcend rhetoric to promote actionable competences, counteracting skepticism towards future-oriented skills and the entrenched neglect of intersectional equity.

4.2.3. Overall Students’ Perspectives

Table 10. Divergence and consensus in Delta students’ views.

		Factor 1	Factor 2
Distinguishing Statements	Neutral	- Integrate climate measures into national policies. - Anticipatory thinking to predict and manage future climate risks.	- Systemic thinking to analyze complex systems for SDG 13 solutions. - SDG 13 application seen as impractical in business.
	Low Relevance	- Systemic thinking to analyze complex systems for SDG 13 solutions.	- Integrate climate measures into national policies. - Anticipatory thinking to predict and manage future climate risks.
	Least Relevant	- SDG 13 application seen as impractical in business. - Prioritize economics over SDG 13 in disciplines.	- Prioritize economics over SDG 13 in disciplines.
Consensus Statements	Neutral	- SDG 13 enhances educational impacts in disciplines. - SDG 13 integration boosts career prospects.
	Low Relevance	- Active, interdisciplinary learning. - Eco-justice-focused education by experienced practitioners.
	Least Relevant	- SDG 13 viewed as corporate greenwashing tool. - Empower marginalized communities in climate planning.

shows the divergence and consensus among Delta students’ views.

The differences in student perceptions of SDG 13 integration provide critical insights for the refinement of teaching strategies and enhancements in engagement with sustainability topics [8,11]. Some students (Factor 1) maintain a neutral stance on integrating climate measures and systemic thinking, while others (Factor 2) find these aspects less relevant, highlighting a gap between academic discourse and practical application in business contexts [8,11]. This gap suggests that a “business as usual” mentality persists despite sustainability efforts [8]. Educators should adopt tailored strategies that address these perceptions, using real-world examples to bridge the relevance gap for students who view SDG 13 as impractical in business [8,99].

The consensus that SDG 13 enhances educational impacts and career prospects supports student motivation and engagement [5,27,72]. However, the low relevance attributed to active, interdisciplinary learning and eco-justice education, alongside the perception of empowering marginalized communities as the “least relevant”, indicates a need for comprehensive pedagogical approaches [8,23]. While project-based learning supports key sustainability competencies, its low ranking suggests that students may not perceive its direct link to personal development in sustainability [55,100]. Educators must articulate the value and applicability of interdisciplinary and active learning to cultivate a holistic sustainability mindset beyond technical or economic considerations [8,98]. Educational programs should encourage diverse career exploration and emphasize the interconnectedness of all SDGs, including socioethical dimensions, to empower students as proactive change agents for a sustainable future [5,8,16,18,81,97,99].

4.2.4. Concluding Discussion and Key Considerations

As a concluding discussion of our results, we will highlight a series of key considerations derived from our findings. These considerations are crucial in understanding the implications of our research on the integration of sustainability in HE. By examining the diverse perspectives of students and the existing gaps in curriculum design, we aim to provide insights that can inform future research, policy development, and practical applications within educational institutions. This discussion will also address the challenges and opportunities for enhancing sustainability education, emphasizing the need for a holistic and transformative approach that aligns with global sustainability goals.

Furthermore, to translate these insights into actionable strategies, a re-evaluation of teaching strategies and curriculum design is warranted within business education. HEIs in the UAE must engage in substantive curriculum reforms rather than merely the symbolic integration of SDG 13 [8]. Given the observed prevalence of a “business as usual” mentality and a tendency to prioritize economics among business students [8], a crucial reform will involve embedding SDG 13 principles through a holistic, “built-in” approach and interdisciplinary approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries by embedding content across the curriculum, rather than through isolated courses [8,11,14,16,98,100,111]. Future educational interventions should explicitly connect financial concepts with real-world sustainability challenges and entrepreneurial opportunities. This can be achieved through course mapping frameworks that explicitly link SDG learning outcomes to core business functions like accounting, finance, and marketing, demonstrating their practical application [8,11,16,112] and ensuring pervasive integration rather than standalone modules [8,100].

To bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application in sustainability education, it is essential to develop key competencies, as outlined by Wiek et al. [41]. By fostering systemic thinking through active, problem-based, and experiential learning methodologies, students’ sustainability literacy can be enhanced [60,66,110,111]. This approach aligns with UNESCO’s ESD for 2030 framework, which emphasizes transformative education and the development of skills for effective problem solving and critical reflection. Integrating real-world challenges and demonstrating the tangible economic and career benefits of SDG literacy can prepare graduates with the practical acumen and leadership capabilities necessary to drive sustainable change within the business world [11,34,41,113]. Specifically, pedagogical frameworks for the integration of SDG 13 content should heavily feature experiential and problem-based learning, recognized for its effectiveness in developing essential sustainability competencies such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and systemic thinking through real-world challenges [99,100,102]. For instance, students could engage in projects addressing local climate risks (e.g., “Anticipatory thinking to predict and manage future climate risks”) within business contexts, requiring them to integrate economic viability with sustainable practices, thus bridging the perceived practicality gap [99].

Moreover, co-curricular engagement can complement formal curricula by offering experiential learning opportunities such as workshops and hackathons, inviting sustainability practitioners and entrepreneurs to share their experiences, and collaborations with local communities and industries on climate-related initiatives [8,81,99]. Engagement bridges theory and practice, providing real contexts for SDG 13 and challenging its perceived impracticality. Integrated frameworks develop financial knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors for economic well-being and sustainability. This fosters skills like empowering marginalized communities and interdisciplinary learning, which are currently undervalued by students. Real-world case studies and industry collaborations can enhance engagement and demonstrate tangible benefits [14,16,41,60,62]. Highlighting the economic and career benefits of SDG 13 literacy can counter perceptions of impracticality [27,113]. Additionally, fostering critical reflection and systemic thinking can address cynicism about “greenwashing” and promote a holistic understanding of sustainability [38,41,66]. For instance, course mapping could introduce modules on sustainable investing and green finance, demonstrating how financial literacy directly influences sustainable entrepreneurship and long-term firm value [114,115]. This approach would not only equip students with tangible skills to navigate complex financial landscapes but also foster a critical understanding of systemic economic inequalities and the societal impact of financial decisions, cultivating more comprehensive financial citizenship.

Additionally, institutional leadership and a supportive culture are paramount, actively rewarding and recognizing faculty efforts in pedagogical innovation for sustainability and ensuring accessible resources and information for both educators and students to overcome perceived barriers to engagement and promote a culture where seeking support is not seen as a weakness [8,96,102]. This multifaceted approach aims to cultivate a deep sustainability mindset, empowering future graduates to become proactive agents of change for SDG 13 [8,98,101]. These reforms should be supported by a whole-institution approach, integrating sustainability into planning, pedagogy, and research, underpinned by continuous faculty development in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) pedagogies [15,59,72]. Frameworks like the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) can guide comprehensive integration [5,48].

5. Conclusions

This study examines the integration of SDG 13 (Climate Action) within business higher education (HE) at a business school (BS) in Delta University within the UAE setting, by assessing student perceptions and pedagogical impacts on fostering sustainability leadership [5,34]. Understanding students’ perspectives is crucial for curriculum development and transformative climate education [23,30,66], particularly in bridging the gap between theoretical awareness and the practical application of climate change concepts in business contexts [29,33]. Using Q-methodology, this research offers empirical evidence of student engagement with SDG 13 and identifies areas where curricular reform is necessary in the UAE context [8,91]. The findings have practical implications for the design of interventions to inculcate students’ commitment towards sustainability and to educate future business leaders who can more effectively tackle climate challenges [18].

The findings reveal a notable disconnect between the global aspirations of SDG 13 and its local and national implementation, leading to student skepticism about the institution’s genuine commitment to this goal [8,10,11,12,13]. This skepticism is consistent with broader critiques of performative sustainability integration, where the true embedding of sustainability principles may be lacking [37,50]. There is a consensus that planning for climate change in impoverished communities is often superficial, indicating the need for a more inclusive approach [62]. This superficial integration aligns with the broader literature highlighting a “legitimacy gap” in symbolic SDG adoption without substantive pedagogical reform [8,13]. Moreover, this aligns with the literature discussing persistent barriers to systemic integration, such as uneven stakeholder engagement and geographic imbalance [8,23].

The findings indicate a strong consensus that stakeholder engagement, especially involving students in curriculum co-creation, is perceived as tokenistic and limited [12,65]. Despite an awareness of their importance, equity and eco-justice integration remain underdeveloped and need improvement in sustainability education [8]. Contrastingly, other studies report more optimistic outcomes and successful sustainability integration when HEIs employ comprehensive strategies, highlighting HEIs’ potential as catalysts for sustainable development and a socially just and environmentally sustainable world [5,34]. However, this study identifies divergent student perceptions about this integration and effective methods for embedding sustainability, as well as the fragmented adoption of climate education across disciplines in business [8,20,21]. This suggests that, while SDG 13 may be included, it is not deeply embedded in business curricula [8,33,72].

Students emphasize the value of active, experiential, project-based, problem-based, and place-based learning, which enhances engagement and skill retention through real-world and local ecological challenges [16,17,18,23,33,36]. However, despite positivity about active learning pedagogies [17], students highlight deficiencies in core sustainability competencies, particularly in critical thinking skills and systems and anticipatory thinking—essential for addressing complex sustainability challenges such as the SDGs. These findings underscore the persistent gaps in teaching complex problem solving and future-oriented skills, a concern also raised by previous studies [8,16,17,18,19,41]. These results clearly suggest that HEIs must move beyond surface-level sustainability integration and embed these competencies across all disciplines [8,10,12,13].

Despite these challenges, strong student support for SDG 13 integration is driven by career relevance, aligning with Generation Z’s demand for action-oriented education addressing climate anxiety and social justice [43,61] and the growing prioritization of transformative leadership [12,66]. These counternarratives disconnect academic goals from student aspirations, emphasizing sustainability’s role in ethical leadership and societal impacts [5,16,27]. These findings align with the literature that suggests that sustainable HE must train students in self-reliance and responsibility, enabling them to play a positive role in the world around them by contributing to an ethical future, linking sustainability education to enhanced career readiness and societal impact [27], and by making education more impactful for society [16].

This highlights that aligning national climate strategies with educational reform is crucial to translate policy rhetoric into practice in the classroom [8,16,18,24,27]. This requires strong institutional support and visionary leadership as key enablers to embed sustainability through strategic planning and faculty training programs [30,67]. Additionally, strong partnerships with industry and NGOs are vital in embedding sustainability and real-world relevancy and addressing skepticism about SDG 13’s business applicability [6,11,49]. Without systemic reform, business HE risks perpetuating the status quo of the business as usual paradigm in curricula and the legitimacy gap between rhetoric and action [8,13].

5.1. Limitations

The findings of this study are constrained by the geocultural specificity of the UAE, where a centralized sustainability policy and rapid modernity create a unique institutional landscape. Delta University’s strategies exemplify the “symbolic adoption of the SDGs” [8], focusing on compliance rather than transformative pedagogy, a trend observed in the Gulf countries’ localized SDG frameworks [80]. This limits the cross-regional applicability of the findings, particularly in decentralized or culturally divergent contexts [23].

Additionally, the 77.37% female cohort introduces critical sampling biases, as the literature consistently highlights gendered disparities in sustainability engagement and knowledge (e.g., heightened environmental concern among females [33,69,72]). This risks the “feminization of sustainability narratives” in our findings, potentially inflating pro-SDG responses, contrasting with global studies that emphasize the need for a gender-balanced sample to ensure generalizability [27]. Specifically, in the UAE, high sustainability awareness among students is often hindered by cultural norms and societal structures, such as patriarchy and wealth, which limit pro-environmental actions, especially among females [24,77]. Additionally, the UAE’s unique policy landscape—centralized sustainability governance policies and a focus on compliance drivers over transformative education—creates challenges in integrating sustainability into higher education, affecting student engagement with SDG 13 [8,37], and limits cross-cultural transferability. This creates an “attitude–behavior gap”, where high awareness (even among females) does not always lead to action [8,77], due to wealth-driven consumption norms and the absence of grassroots empowerment frameworks [77]. Furthermore, 73% of the participants had conducted prior sustainability coursework, which may have led to “preconditioned receptivity” [24], overstating their baseline awareness and omitting perspectives from less integrated curricula [26].

A significant limitation is the exclusive focus on student perceptions, without incorporating the opinions or participation of external stakeholders, such as academics, employers, and policymakers [8]. This exclusion further narrows the scope, neglecting institutional isomorphism mechanisms (e.g., accreditation requirements and resource allocations) that significantly impact SDG integration [8]. Additionally, this narrow scope hinders the generalizability and comprehensiveness of the findings, as different stakeholder groups often hold varied perspectives on sustainability integration and its practical application in business contexts [8,48,60,61,63]. In the Gulf context, “top-down policy inertia” drives sustainability efforts [31], meaning that student perceptions alone may mask gaps in faculty training.

Methodologically, the Q-methodology approach, with a focus on subjective perspectives, overlooks temporal changes. Cross-sectional designs fail to capture shifts in attitudes as the UAE undergoes policy transitions, such as Net Zero 2050, and have been critiqued by longitudinal studies [101]. As Watts and Stenner [28] highlight, this “photograph” approach trivializes the complexity of belief systems. Collectively, these limitations underscore the “Global North–South epistemic divide” [15], where Gulf studies struggle to disentangle localized practices from universal models, urging cautious extrapolation beyond the UAE’s sociopolitical context.

5.2. Future Research

To address these limitations, future research should prioritize longitudinal studies tracking graduates’ climate leadership over decades, especially in contexts of “symbolic SDG adoption” [8] that distract from longer-term behavior change. Such frameworks could assess how preconditioned receptivity [24] interacts with post-graduation institutional pressures in fossil fuel-dominated economies, expanding on Lozano et al.’s [18] decadal approach.

Future research should prioritize gender-balanced, institutionally diverse samples to mitigate the feminization of sustainability engagement and the knowledge observed. Expanding recruitment to include cross-disciplinary programs and underrepresented institutions (e.g., vocational or non-Western-model universities) would strengthen claims about UAE higher education as a whole. Additionally, incorporating multi-stakeholder perspectives—such as in-depth interviews with faculty, policymakers, and practitioners driving green campus initiatives [8,59,60,83]—is critical to contextualize student narratives and reduce the reliance on preconditioned cohorts. Replication studies should test the findings in regions with contrasting policy frameworks (e.g., decentralized vs. top-down sustainability governance) and populations with minimal prior sustainability education. Future research should also involve conducting a cluster analysis to distinguish between negative, positive, and neutral perceptions among students in order to tailor and adjust curricula and pedagogies.

Comparative efforts in Global South countries undergoing fossil fuel transitions themselves (e.g., Indonesia, Colombia) could test the transportability of student-centered models to contexts that diverge from the UAE’s centralized governance, fragmented policies, and resource dependence, which could challenge assumptions about curriculum scaling [8,28].

Mixed-methods investigations should explore how staff training and institutional incentives overcome pedagogical inertia [31], quantify causal correlations between training hours and SDG-aligned syllabus revisions, and capture “resistance narratives” from staff to fill Gulf-specific gaps [62]. Participatory action research co-designing “impact-weighted” evaluation frameworks with stakeholders could realign neoliberal metrics [12] of climate action outcomes, rather than using compliance checklists.

Furthermore, students’ responses may reflect their experiences with hidden curricula, the institutional culture, and broader generational attitudes, which are specific to the Arab context. Therefore, future research should explore how student perceptions of SDG integration extend beyond the formal curriculum. These perceptions are profoundly influenced by the hidden curriculum, which includes informal learning and socialization within student organizations [8,105]. This aspect addresses broader student sustainability needs and aspirations [8]. The institutional culture significantly shapes these perceptions, impacting how educational goals are understood, innovative teaching practices are encouraged (e.g., climate negotiation simulation, carbon accounting with local firms), and resources are provided [8,96,99]. A robust institutional commitment and supportive policies are crucial for substantive change, moving beyond mere symbolic integration [8,81,100]. Additionally, broader societal and generational attitudes towards climate action and sustainability play a key role [97,99]. These cultural variables and national contexts directly influence individual perceptions of the SDGs [97,101], often leading to specific priorities or overlooking certain aspects based on prevailing norms or national strategies [81,97].

Additionally, future research should explore the role of advanced digital technologies, particularly AI-driven climate scenario tools, in enhancing experiential learning within sustainability education [20,90,116,117]. AI offers personalized learning experiences and real-time data analysis, providing insights into sustainability challenges and industry trends [22,116]. Integrating AI with experiential methodologies, such as business simulations and real-world projects, can offer students critical opportunities for practical application and problem solving, moving beyond theoretical knowledge [62,63]. Moreover, investigating strategic partnerships between HEIs and UAE green tech startups could provide invaluable insights into the integration of regional innovations into educational strategies, aligning with the UAE’s national sustainability agenda and technological focus [8,55,75]. Such research could assess the effectiveness of these combined approaches in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, thereby fostering a more robust understanding of sustainability and essential 21st-century competencies among students [17,61]. This forward-looking approach would not only support the UAE’s vision for technological advancement and sustainable economic development but also contribute significantly to the development of innovative and adaptive pedagogical frameworks that effectively prepare students to tackle complex, real-world climate challenges [22,50,84]. Controlled experiments comparing AI-enhanced modules against typical practices are needed to determine whether technology negates [33] gender skews in engagement or amplifies inequities through algorithmic bias [53].

Likewise, transdisciplinary stakeholder mapping by social network analysis can decode Gulf university power asymmetries in SDG integration, revealing how they balance profit-driven mandates with UNESCO’s “whole-institution” sustainability models [110]. Ethnographic investigations could unveil obscured impediments such as budget allocations favoring STEM over sustainability humanities, propelling global paradigms that transcend the UAE’s contextual boundaries [15].

Furthermore, future research should explore scaling sustainability integration in UAE HEIs by addressing curricular changes and systemic enablers. This study’s findings can guide the UAE’s National SDG Coordination Committee and regional bodies to develop frameworks mandating SDG integration across teaching, research, and community engagement [8,12]. Key structural barriers include enhancing faculty training for effective ESD delivery [61] and securing funding for climate labs and digital infrastructure to support experiential learning [117]. Collaborations with local green tech startups can align educational strategies with the UAE’s technological vision, providing real-world learning opportunities [55,99]. This approach would ensure that curricular reforms are supported by systemic enablers, enabling graduates to tackle regional environmental challenges [13,34,111].