The Paradox of Sustainability in Higher Education: High Awareness but Limited Competency in Applying SDG 12 Principles

Abstract

This study examines the conflicting relationship between high awareness and limited competency in applying Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 principles among students in Higher Education (HE). Although SDG 12 is acknowledged as a societal imperative and students exhibit a grounded understanding of these sustainability concepts, there is a scarcity of holistic integration of the necessary competencies for the application of SDG principles to real-world business contexts. This discrepancy necessitates the development of educational strategies that not only increase awareness but also improve practical competencies. This study explores the cognitive, affective, and behavioral pillars of student perceptions by employing a mixed-methods approach. The findings reveal a division among students into idealist and pragmatist groups regarding SDG 12 implementation, highlighting the need for pedagogical innovation and interdisciplinary integration. By bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, this study contributes to equipping future leaders with the skills necessary to drive sustainable transformations in an increasingly complex world.

1. Introduction

Recent literature sheds light on the important role of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in advancing sustainability and educating future leaders and citizens capable of tackling global issues [1,2,3,4,5,6]. By integrating sustainability into their core operations, these institutions are uniquely positioned to support the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Of particular relevance, SDG 12, which emphasizes responsible consumption and production, is particularly pertinent to individuals and society at large [13,14]. SDG 12’s main objective is to rethink current production and distribution methods to promote lower and more sustainable consumption levels. Businesses are viewed as key players in promoting sustainable development and influencing actions that align with SDG 12 [4,5,15]. In this context, it is imperative that HEIs equip future professionals with the knowledge and abilities needed to integrate sustainable practices into their respective fields [3,4,5,9,16,17,18].

Studies in the extant literature consistently highlight the important role of HEIs in promoting sustainability and advancing SDGs [2,3,6,10,11,19,20]. There is a growing trend toward integrating sustainability issues and implementing SDGs into Higher Education (HE) curricula, with significant research exploring this integration in various disciplines, including business studies [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. However, despite these efforts, integration often lacks depth, failing to incorporate systemic and anticipatory thinking, indicating that it can be piecemeal rather than truly transformative [28].

To implement enhanced sustainability learning, innovative pedagogical approaches, especially those that are active, experiential, and connect theory to real-world problems are being called for in the literature [1,15,22,26]. For example, some studies find that Project-based learning (PBL) promotes sustainable development in ways that students deem interesting and engaging, leading to heightened critical and innovative thinking [19,26]. On another note, the importance of industry collaborations in enhancing real-world relevance and providing resources for embedding sustainable consumption models has also been documented in the literature [2,19,26,29,30]. Moreover, and to the contrary, other studies find that traditional teaching methods are found to be less effective in developing sustainability competencies [17].

Research on student perceptions is important for successfully shaping pedagogical methods, as the effectiveness of sustainability integration initiatives depends on how well students perceive and act upon sustainability concepts [4,25]. Several studies in the extant literature find that students, on average, exhibit awareness of sustainability concepts and their importance; nevertheless, many still have a limited understanding regarding the importance of SDGs [29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Several other studies in the extant literature around sustainability integration find that educational interventions positively impact students’ engagement in sustainability efforts [32,34].

Many existing studies focus on expert evaluations or HEIs’ reporting of SDG initiatives; nevertheless, there is a need to understand the integration of SDG principles from the students’ perspective [12,17]. Despite the increasing awareness of the importance of integrating sustainability in HEIs, there remains a notable gap in the literature in terms of examining student perceptions of SDG 12 integration. While some SDGs have been extensively researched, others, like SDG 12, are less explored through student-focused empirical studies [12,33,36]. Furthermore, there is an overarching need to quantify how effectively HEIs contribute to specific SDGs like SDG 12 [11]. This study provides a granular examination of how students perceive and prioritize SDG 12 knowledge and its practical implications within their educational journey, revealing distinct student groups and their perspectives.

This study aims to address this gap in the literature by providing a granular examination of how students perceive and prioritize SDG 12 knowledge and its practical implications within their educational journey [1]. Specifically, we highlight the primary objectives of this study as follows:

• Assess undergraduate students’ perceptions regarding the integration of SDG 12 into their formal curriculum within HE.
• Determine how students perceive the pedagogical approaches used by HEIs to embed SDG 12-related topics within their courses.
• Identify areas where students perceive strong integration of SDG 12 and areas where integration may be less evident or where skepticism persists.
• Provide insights that can inform future curricular development and pedagogical strategies to foster competence and active engagement with responsible consumption and production among students.

These objectives correspond to the following research questions guiding this study:

• How do undergraduate students perceive the integration of SDG 12 into their formal curriculum within higher education?
• What pedagogical strategies are perceived as most effective in embedding SDG 12-related topics?
• Which areas of the curriculum show strong or weak SDG 12 integration from the students’ perspective?
• How can these insights be used to improve curriculum design and promote practical sustainability competencies?

The empirical basis of this study relies on a mixed-methods approach using Q-methodology to systematically analyze subjective perspectives regarding SDG 12 integration in a single HEI in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) [1]. The UAE context offers a distinctive framework for analyzing the integration of sustainability, especially in light of its institutional and cultural characteristics. Utilizing institutional theory, we contextualize our findings by examining how normative, regulatory, and cultural–cognitive elements influence students’ perspectives on sustainability, their engagement with sustainability topics, and practices within the institution. This method corresponds with existing research that explores the incorporation of sustainability in higher education across distinct cultural and institutional contexts [1,2,3,7,8]. Given the UAE’s national strategy on sustainable development and the Net-Zero 2050 Agenda, understanding student perceptions within this context is vital. Research in the UAE has emphasized the role of HEIs as accelerators of SDG localization [1], yet studies focusing specifically on SDG 12 remain limited [11,13].

The study employs Q-methodology to systematically analyze subjective perspectives, capturing nuanced viewpoints that traditional large-scale studies often miss. This methodological choice deliberately prioritizes the systematic analysis of subjective perspectives over traditional statistical generalizability [1]. Q-methodology is highly appropriate for researching complex and profound challenges, such as the integration of the SDG 12 challenge in HE, as it captures nuanced viewpoints that traditional large-scale studies often miss.

This study has several contributions. Theoretically, this study significantly advances the theoretical understanding of sustainability education by illustrating the nuanced perspectives students hold toward SDG 12. It challenges the assumption that sustainability education is uniformly perceived, revealing the existence of distinct groups such as “Idealists” and “Pragmatists” [3,4,5,15,36]. Traditional studies often focus on expert or institutional perspectives, overlooking student viewpoints and their actual understanding of SDG integration [7,16,17]. By exploring these varied, subjective student viewpoints, this study moves beyond previous educator-focused approaches, providing critical insights for maximizing the impact of sustainability education initiatives [16,21]. Through the use of Q-methodology, this study advances understanding of student perceptions, which complements traditional survey approaches by reducing the influence of social desirability bias and skewed response distributions. By emphasizing individual viewpoints, the method brings to light different perspectives and groups students into distinct categories. This results in a richer understanding of SDG integration and supports the design of curricula and pedagogical approaches that are more finely tailored to the needs of diverse learners.

From a practical point of view, the study calls on policymakers and educators to prioritize integrating sustainability across disciplines in order to foster a comprehensive understanding of its economic and ethical dimensions. This integration is crucial for developing a holistic view of sustainability that encompasses both its ethical directions and its strategic relevance in professional contexts [4,5,19,37]. Strengthening curricular integration and fostering interdisciplinary connections can enable students to perceive SDG 12 not only as an ethical necessity but also as a strategic asset for their careers [3,4,5,13,19,26,36]. To achieve this, promoting pedagogical innovations such as project-based learning (PBL) and industry partnerships is essential. These methods enhance the practical relevance of education and support transformative learning experiences that prepare students for the workplace. Moreover, such approaches are effective in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, thereby fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills [2,4,15,17,30,37]. Additionally, offering rewards can positively impact student engagement in sustainable initiatives, motivating them to participate actively in sustainability efforts [16,38]. By promoting proactive engagement and dedication to sustainable practices, this approach can improve the overall efficacy of sustainability education.

The rest of the paper proceeds as follows: Following this introduction, the literature on SDG 12 integration in HE is reviewed in Section 2. Section 3 outlines the research methodology, while Section 4 presents and discusses the results. Finally, Section 5 presents conclusions, practical implications, and avenues for future research.

2. Literature Review

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are perceived as key stakeholders in promoting sustainable development and resolving the global challenges highlighted by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1,2,7,10,30]. Recent studies in the relevant literature examine how students perceive the integration of sustainability in higher education curricula and research [8,16,26]. However, there are some gaps in the relevant literature in terms of understanding students’ direct perception of the different SDGs and quantifying the effectiveness of HEIs’ contribution toward such goals. Studies in the extant literature find evidence that students have some level of awareness of sustainability but lack knowledge of what the SDGs mean and why they matter [16,21,33]. Moreover, recent studies find that students do not perceive viable relationships between their future professional lives and the SDGs [33]. Nevertheless, students tend to show a positive attitude toward integrating sustainability issues in their education and express their willingness to learn more [2,16,25,30].

More specifically, for SDG 12, the literature describes the role of education in teaching about the importance of encouraging sustainable consumption and production behaviors [13,29]. HEIs should contribute to SDG 12 through teaching, research, and community engagement, whereby the most explicit way is by integrating such concepts into the curriculum [29]. In this vein, several studies document the following methods for integrating SDG 12 into HEI curricula: transformative Sustainability Learning [15], integration of circular economy philosophy into teaching [26], study of the SDGs in marketing curricula [5], and teaching SDGs using project-based learning [19]. Similarly, Delacroix [15] finds that the arts-and-crafts approach is highly effective in teaching SDG 12, which encourages students to consider SDG 12 from the viewpoints of social, environmental, and economic aspects. The integration of the circular economy into teaching requires new competencies, knowledge, tools, and methods in HEI courses [26]. Business faculty, in particular, has a unique potential to influence sustainable consumption, and students perceive a high demand from employers for curricula that equip them with the skills to use data responsibly [1]. Project-based learning methods also contribute to the understanding of SDGs, including SDG 12, because the methods develop critical and innovative thinking [19]. Several moral competencies, such as self-regulation, love of learning, kindness, appreciation of beauty, humility, leadership, and perspective, have been empirically linked to sustainable consumption and are suggested as learning objectives for the relevant curricula [37]. However, in spite of the positive attitudes mentioned above, there is still a significant gap in quantifying the effectiveness of HEIs in contributing to SDG 12 [29]. Much of the research depends on qualitative evidence or limited case studies rather than comprehensive, data-driven comparisons [29].

However, despite the increase in research on the perception of SDG 12 integration in HE, several significant research gaps have not been addressed. First, despite the growing research on the perception of SDG 12 integration in HE, there is a lack of student-centered SDG 12 perception studies. This is significant because student engagement is considered a central success factor in sustainability education. Without understanding student perspectives, efforts to integrate sustainability may remain superficial or ineffective [4,30]. Despite the growing interest in examining student perceptions of sustainability integration in HE [2,17,30], the majority of these studies focus on institutional reporting or teacher viewpoints [17]. In terms of students’ direct perceptions of SDG 12 integration, including their awareness, perception of importance, and actual implementation in courses and future work, a knowledge gap persists [5]. Second, there is a lack of quantitative research on the effectiveness of HEIs regarding their contribution to achieving SDG 12. Most studies in the literature are based on qualitative evidence or limited case studies, leaving a crucial gap in the quantification of HEI impacts on SDG 12 [29]. In addition, the methodological inconsistency of SDG assessment frameworks, which can be seen in the HEI impact rankings, yields unreliable results that do not provide a robust view of how HEIs perceive the integration of SDG 12 [11,12].

Third, a clear gap exists between students’ theoretical understanding of the various SDGs and their ability to put this knowledge into practice. In other words, students may acknowledge the importance and relevance of SDG 12; nevertheless, such knowledge often remains abstract and disconnected from real-world applications. Perhaps a reason for this is the overreliance on traditional learning methods, which are not well-equipped to support the dynamic, cross-disciplinary nature of SDG-related learning. This gap between theoretical SDG knowledge and practical application in the curriculum may impact how students perceive the applicability of SDGs in their future careers. Lastly, there is a shortage of studies specifically examining SDG 12, particularly within regions such as the UAE. While several studies in the extant literature have examined general awareness of education for sustainable development (ESD) [1,10], far fewer have explored how SDG 12 is comprehended and integrated in national or regional contexts, although national context and local frameworks play an important role in effectiveness [11]. Moreover, although several pedagogical approaches to sustainable consumption are discussed in the literature, there is no systematic assessment and evaluation of the mechanisms for integrating sustainability in SDG 12-specific curricula from the perspective of students’ perceptions and opinions [16]. As a result, there is limited insight into how effective current teaching methods enhance students’ applied knowledge of SDG 12.

Against this backdrop, this study aims to understand how SDG 12 is perceived and integrated within HE in the UAE, a region that has been less explored in the extant literature surrounding SDGs. This research will contribute to a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with embedding sustainability principles in HE curricula, which will, in turn, inform implementation strategies and also create a culture of responsible consumption and production among future leaders.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Context and Methodology

The study was conducted in the College of Business (COB) for a leading higher education university in the United Arab Emirates. The institution has a centralized governance structure with a growing emphasis on sustainability integration in business education. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are seen as key players in fostering SD and achieving SDGs. These institutions have a major role to play in shaping future leaders, managers, and citizens who can address global sustainability challenges [1]. To effectively integrate SD and SDGs, such as SDG 12, in HEI curriculum, courses, and competencies, one of the first steps is to understand students’ perceptions and subsequently design educational interventions that improve learning and provide skills according to institutional and learners’ needs [1,39]. Although traditional surveys have been used to understand students’ perceptions, the inherent subjectivity and complexity of these perceptions regarding sustainability integration necessitate a different methodological approach that can unveil nuanced viewpoints [1,29]. Traditional surveys have been mainly used to help institutions understand students’ perceptions. Nevertheless, although traditional surveys offer valuable data, the inherent subjectivity and complexity of student perceptions regarding sustainability integration necessitate a different methodological approach that can unveil nuanced viewpoints. Given that SDG 12 is a subjective topic, the Q method could help reveal different types of opinions that may be concealed in survey results [1,40].

Following Elmassri et al. [1], the research design follows a process that includes Q-set construction, Q-sort implementation, data collection, analysis, and factor interpretation. The “Q-set”, consisting of a predefined number of statements, will be developed through an iterative deductive-inductive process, informed by existing literature and refined through expert review and student feedback to ensure comprehensive representation of diverse perceptions. Participants will engage in a “Q-sort”, ranking these statements according to their perceived relevance to SDG 12 integration, which allows for the capture of individual viewpoints and subjective interpretations. For “data collection”, the survey will be administered to approximately 65 undergraduate business students, a sample size appropriate for Q-methodology studies that prioritize in-depth qualitative understanding over broad statistical generalizability. Consequently, results must be interpreted as highly contextualized findings. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation will be used to identify patterns in the Q-sort data, treating participants as variables and statements as cases. Factor loadings will determine significant associations, and normalized scores will rank statement salience within identified factors. “Factor interpretation” will be conducted through the analysis of consensus and distinguishing statements, revealing shared priorities and unique perspectives among the student groups [1,29].

Q methodology, developed by William Stephenson in 1953 [41], is a mixed-methods research methodology that combines quantitative factor analysis with qualitative participant sampling [41,42,43]. The Q-sorts provide the researcher with results that can be analyzed using standard statistical procedures to identify both shared common factors and variances within small samples of Q-sorts [1,44]. The Q method differs from other correlational studies that need large datasets to reveal the results of participants’ reactions to a variety of stimuli [45]. Instead, the Q method’s main goal is to achieve more depth and context-specificity, which makes the Q method very well suited for subjective topics such as sustainability education [1,39,45,46]. As Brown [44] and Watts and Stenner [43] assert, Q methodology aims to generate typologies of subjective viewpoints within a specific context, rather than for statistical generalization to wider populations. By focusing on small sample sizes rather than generalizability, the Q method can identify shared versus differing attitudes [1,44,45,46].

Additionally, the Q method can help capture the range of student perspectives regarding integrating the goals of SDG 12. Its purpose is to provide a deeper and more granular understanding of how students perceive sustainability and to identify the barriers and needs that shape integration efforts [43]. The Q method is best suited to investigate subjective viewpoints, such as student perceptions of environmentally responsible learning, which is a central aim of HEIs when addressing SDG 12 implementation efforts [42,44]. Furthermore, students’ perceptions toward integrating SDG 12 goals into university curricula, courses, and competencies depend on subjective factors, such as attitudes, values, and behavior regarding consumption and production [47]. Moreover, the Q method can explore the potential types of students’ perceptions on integrating SDG 12. Q-method fits the purposes of this study since this methodology can explore different types of students’ perceptions and identify the shared features within each type. In other words, the Q method can be used in any field, such as pre-service teachers’ perceptions of SDGs [39,47], university teachers’ perceptions of professional learning and pedagogical change [46], and university educators’ perceptions of pedagogical challenges to embed sustainability [48]. Additionally, the Q method has been used to explore students’ perceptions toward environmental conscious behavior [49], and students’ perceptions in terms of integrating SDG 8 [1].

When implementing the Q method in the research design, participants are asked to rank statements using Q-sorts, and thus, they are less likely to exaggerate their perception of a highly desired topic to meet social expectations. Therefore, the Q method can be used for understanding the differences between stances and behaviors concerning SDG 12, specifically, how students perceive SDG 12 goals and how they translate the integration of SDG 12 goals into reality in their studies and future careers. Finally, Q method studies can help raise awareness about knowledge-action gaps in sustainability. Numerous studies have revealed that knowledge in itself is not sufficient for action [39,42,43,50]. Q methodology helps identify the barriers and needs associated with integrating sustainability into the curriculum, making it particularly well-suited for educational research. It can therefore be applied to explore how students perceive the incorporation of SDG 12 into university curricula, courses, and competencies.

Therefore, Q methodology is a systematic mixed-methods approach designed to map human subjectivity, making it uniquely effective for analyzing value-laden topics such as sustainability. It identifies shared patterns of thought (factors) within a group, leading to analytic generalization rather than mere statistical prevalence [44]. In the following

Table 1. Q-Methodology: Capturing Subjective Typologies for Complex Research.

What Q-Methodology Does	What Q-Methodology Does Not Do
Reveals Subjectivity: Systematically identifies a limited collection of common and shared viewpoints or perspectives regarding a topic.	Measure Incidence: Does not evaluate the prevalence of a viewpoint in the general population, as it lacks the characteristics of a representative survey.
Provides Depth: Offers granular, holistic, comprehensive and detailed profiles of complete belief systems, suitable for addressing complex issues such as the integration of SDG 12.	Seek Consensus: The objective is to delineate the landscape of existing perspectives, encompassing areas of conflict, rather than to achieve agreement.
Combines Rigor: Integrates qualitative interpretation with quantitative factor analysis.	Correlate Variables: Does not establish correlations among isolated traits within a population (e.g., it is not R-methodology).
Mitigates Bias: The forced-choice Q-sorting process mitigates social desirability bias by necessitating relative judgements.	Rely on Random Sampling: Does not employ statistical sampling methods intended for population-level generalization.
Achieves Analytic Generalization: Aims to identify all potential viewpoints within a discourse for transferable theoretical insights, even with small, purposive samples.

, we have synthesized what Q methodology does and what it does not do, based on the core principles outlined in the seminal works of Brown [44], Watts and Stenner [43], and Stephenson [41].

3.2. Research Design Q-Methodology

This study employs Q-methodology in its research design. The Q method is a systematic mixed-method approach designed to capture and analyze subjective perspectives. A key strength of Q-methodology lies in its ability to integrate quantitative factor analysis with qualitative interpretation [42,43]. The five steps of Q-methodology (Q-set construction, Q-sort, data collection, analysis, and factor interpretation) provide a granular investigation of participants’ perspectives on SDG 12 within higher education. The first stage involves developing the Q-set, which is a set of statements designed to capture the range of discourses or perceptions on the topic under investigation. In the case of SDG 12, statements would reflect aspects of its inclusion (or absence) in curricula, course content, and the development of related competencies such as sustainable consumption behaviors, circular economy principles, and responsible production ethics. For this study, developing a Q-set usually involves an iterative deductive-inductive process that draws on an existing body of literature and theoretical frameworks relating to SDG 12 and sustainability education in the HE context [44,45,46,47]. This process requires extensive field knowledge and expertise in the subjectivity and viewpoints of the issue to provide a broad set of statements that represent views. Iterative refinement of the Q-set is important to ensure clarity and avoid repetition and that the statements are comprehensible to respondents and reflective of the topic. It is also important to ensure that the Q-set has an appropriate number of statements [43]. We contextualize the SGD 12 principles and targets within the three pedagogical themes: content/curriculum, knowledge & skills, and awareness & attitude. Thus, the source we use is the SDG 12 targets and indicators, which have been contextualized with the main features of each of the three pedagogical stances. This approach has also been adopted in several previous studies (e.g., Elmassri et al. [1]).

The second stage, Q-sort Implementation, starts once the Q-set is finalized. Unlike a typical Likert scale, where each item is scored independently, Q-sort requires respondents to rank statements along a quasi-normal distribution, typically using a scale ranging from “most agree” to “most disagree” or “most like my view” to “most unlike my view” [1,44,47]. This forced-choice approach compels participants to make relative judgments, thereby revealing their personal priorities and perspectives while minimizing the social desirability bias often present in survey responses. In the context of SDG 12, this approach allows researchers to gauge how students prioritize different aspects of SDG 12 integration beyond simple agreement, uncovering the different structure of their perceptions [1,49].

In the third phase, “Data Collection”, after obtaining the host institution’s ethical approval, Q-sort is usually completed by participants online or using physical cards and an answer sheet. As respondents subjectively position the statements according to their personal impressions or opinions, the instructions emphasize subjective interpretation, encouraging the capture of individual viewpoints [44]. In the context of SDG 12 integration in HE, participants rank statements based on their perceived importance or agreement/disagreement regarding SDG 12 integration in curriculum, course, and competence development according to their own and educational priorities [1]. Additionally, demographic characteristics may be collected to contextualize the responses, though Q-methodology prioritizes depth of subjective understanding over the generalizability of large sample sizes.

The administration employed a hybrid structure: initial demographic data were collected via Google Forms for practicality, then We adopted factor analysis using the Ken-Q Analysis Desktop Edition (KADE) software (Version 2.0.1), an open-source software for Q studies which strictly enforces the methodological requirements of a forced-choice distribution. Participants sorted the 37 statements along a quasi-normal distribution grid ranging from “Most Agree” (+3) to “Most Disagree” (−3). We adopted forced choice by giving five boxes for +3, six boxes for +2, seven boxes for +1, one box for 0, seven boxes for −1, six boxes for −2 and five boxes for −3 (Figure 1).

In the fourth phase, “Data Analysis”, the collected Q-sort (i.e., the ranked statements) data was analyzed using a quantitative factor analysis technique commonly referred to as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation. This statistical method identifies patterns in the Q-sort data by treating participants as variables and Q-set statements as cases [51]. The goal is to identify distinct “factors” or shared perspectives on the part of participants. The assessment of factor selection involves several criteria, including eigenvalues (eigenvalues > 1.0), scree plot, and interpretability [43]. Statements with factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.4 are interpreted to be related to a factor. Normalized scores (e.g., −3 to +3) for each statement determine its relative salience in a factor. This analysis helps identify the underlying perspectives participants hold toward SDG 12 integration. For the purpose of this study, the correlations between the Q-sorts of the 65 participants were calculated, relying on a methodological approach including iterative processes, wherein several techniques of factor extraction and rotation were employed. The identification of the significant components was ultimately achieved by utilizing the centroid analysis method (a common technique in Q-methodology) [1]. This process resulted in eight factors with eigenvalues greater than one, collectively accounting for 75% of the total variance (Factor 1: 61.5%; Factor 2: 13.5%) [45]. Initially, the principal component analysis produced eight factors with eigenvalues greater than one, based on the responses from 65 participants. The first two factors explained 70% and 12% of the variance, respectively, yielding a cumulative variance of 82%, which exceeds the commonly accepted threshold for explanatory adequacy [43]. Although the eight factors together accounted for up to 75% of the variance, the distinctions between them were less interpretable [52]. As such, only two factors were retained, as their accumulated explained variances exceeded 50%, and the remaining factors lacked a sufficient number of defining variables to justify inclusion [53]. This approach balances statistical rigor with practical interpretability, consistent with best practices in sustainability education research.

The composite reliability values (>0.90) for each factor were calculated using the formula for internal consistency reliability within Q-methodology, which is analogous to the composite reliability (CR) measure in structural equation modeling [54]. The formula applied in PQMethod is based on the number of defining variables (sorts) and their loadings on the factor. For our two retained factors, the high reliability coefficients stem from the strong average loadings of the defining sorts (Factor 1: 0.72; Factor 2: 0.68) and the sufficient number of significantly loading sorts per factor (8 and 7, respectively). We have now explicitly stated this computation in Section 3.2.

Furthermore, to rigorously establish discriminant validity, we confirm that the squared correlation between the two factor arrays (r² = 0.07) is significantly less than the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each factor (both >0.70). This confirms the factors are distinct and measure uniquely shared viewpoints. The final two-factor solution was confirmed to be robust through supplementary sensitivity checks. The factors exhibited low-to-moderate correlation, justifying the use of Varimax rotation and demonstrating stability against oblique alternatives. The application of dual significance thresholds confirmed the consistency of the core differentiating statements, and the rigorous Q-set construction ensured a balanced representation of the concourse. This multi-faceted validation reinforces the distinct nature and reliability of the identified ‘Idealist’ and ‘Pragmatist’ viewpoints.

In the final stage, “Factor Interpretation”, researchers examine distinguishing and consensus statements for each factor, identify themes, values, and perspectives, and label each unique perspective. For SDG 12, the analysis may result in defining and describing groups of students with unique perspectives, such as “Proactive Innovators” who are in favor of SDG 12 integration or “Cautious Realists” who are skeptical of its applicability in the business world [1]. By identifying such perspectives, Q-methodology can highlight specific gaps in knowledge, barriers, and needs related to sustainability integration, providing a better understanding of tailored educational interventions that can align SDG 12 education with the expectations of learners and help foster a genuine sustainability mindset [32]. This systematic process and combination of statistical rigor and qualitative richness provide a robust framework for the investigation and understanding of the complex and ever-evolving landscape of students’ perspectives toward SDG 12 integration in HE.

To ensure full transparency, the Q-set of 37 statements (final questionnaire), the Scree Plot Analysis, the factor arrays, and a detailed table of distinguishing/consensus statements with p-values will be provided upon request from the authors.

3.3. Ethical Approval

This study received ethical approval from the Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (SS-REC) at United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), United Arab Emirates (Approval Code: ERSC_2024_5287) on 5 December 2024. Prior to participation, written informed consent was obtained from all individuals involved. The questionnaire responses were anonymized, and participants were assured that they could withdraw from the study at any point without any consequences. The survey was administered online in English between January and April 2025.

3.4. Sample Characteristics

Data collection followed a hybrid procedure. Demographic data were collected via Google Forms, while the Q-sort exercise was conducted using Ken-Q Analysis Desktop Edition (KADE) software, an open-source platform designed for Q-methodology studies. Ethical approval was obtained, and participants were guided through ranking 37 statements under a forced-choice distribution. The survey was administered online in English between January and April 2025. After excluding incomplete responses and outliers, a final sample of 65 responses was retained, representing a range of fields of study: Accounting (41.27%), Business Administration (26.98%), Finance and Banking (26.98%), Economics (3.17%), and Statistics and Data Analysis (1.59%). It is important to note that all participants were drawn from business-related disciplines, including accounting, finance, and economics. This may introduce a disciplinary lens through which sustainability is interpreted, particularly in relation to corporate social responsibility, economic outcomes, and market-based thinking. Future research should include a more diverse disciplinary cohort to assess how students from different academic domains conceptualize sustainability.

The majority of respondents were females (93.65%), aged between 19 and 23, which reflects the gender and age profile of the university’s student population. We acknowledge that the majority of the study sample is female; however, this reflects the demographic composition of the HEI under study, which is predominantly female. In addition, all students are required to complete a compulsory four-month sustainability course in their early year of study. While this shared foundation ensures a baseline knowledge of sustainability, our study specifically focuses on how this early knowledge is further developed and reflected differently across various disciplines within the business school (e.g., accounting, HR, marketing, finance). Thus, our aim is to explore how students’ understanding of SDG 12 evolves and is shaped by their disciplinary contexts, rather than being limited to the influence of the compulsory course. All respondents had completed at least one sustainability-related course, which supports the notion that the pool of respondents had some prior knowledge of SDG 12 [32]. However, only 31.75% reported active participation in student associations, which are considered important channels through which students engage with SDGs and become familiarized with the principles for responsible management education (PRME).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Results Overview

The results of the study revealed two distinct factors representing differing priorities regarding the inclusion of SDG 12 content within the undergraduate curriculum. Factor 1 (“Idealists”), representing 61.5% of respondents, prioritized practical interventions and policy-driven sustainability, aligning with SDG 12 targets such as reducing food loss and ensuring environmentally sound waste management [13,55]. Factor 2 (“Pragmatists”), representing 21.3% of respondents, exhibited a more pragmatic, economically focused perspective, prioritizing profit maximization and favoring a fragmented approach to corporate responsibility [1]. Both factors showed consensus on the importance of waste prevention, recycling, and reuse, indicating successful embedding of universal sustainability competencies [26]. However, there were nuanced discrepancies in student perceptions regarding the balance of technical versus socio-cultural sustainability dimensions within the curriculum.

Factor 1 comprises 40 respondents, representing 61.5% of the sample, all of whom load significantly on this factor at the p = 0.05 level (flagged members). Factor 2 includes 16 respondents, representing 24.6% of the sample, with all respondents flagged at the same significance threshold. The correlations between the factor scores were found to be low to moderate. A detailed breakdown of the factor characteristics is presented in

Table 2. Factor Characteristics and Reliability.

	Factor 1	Factor 2
No. of Defining Variables	40	16
Avg. Rel. Coef.	0.8	0.8
Composite Reliability	0.992	0.988
S.E. of Factor Z-scores	0.089	0.11
Eigenvalue	10.8	2.4
% Explained Variance	61.5%	13.5%
Cumulative	75%

.

Factor loadings were considered statistically significant at the 10% level [1]. In order to confirm the validity of the study, only items with loadings above the 0.5 threshold were retained in the analysis, with significant statements flagged using asterisks as shown in Figure 2 [56]. The factor structure was further clarified through the application of varimax rotation, chosen for its rigor and simplicity in maximizing variance distribution [57]. Table 2 shows that the composite reliability of the two factors exceeds 90%, which is greater than the 70% benchmark [54], confirming robust internal consistency and high reliability of the selected factors. Factor arrays, calculated as the weighted averages of statement scores within each factor, were generated to represent participants’ collective viewpoints [42,44]. These arrays, illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3, served as the basis for interpreting the distinct perspectives that emerged from the analysis [58].

4.2. Student Perspectives

Tables 3, 5 and 7, along with Tables 4, 6 and 8, present the distinguishing and consensus statements for Factors 1 and 2, organized by agreement and disagreement [53]. All statements display statistically significant Q-SV and Z-scores, indicating their differentiating or unifying value [1] in terms of how students perceive the extent to which SDG 12 content is incorporated in their undergraduate business education. In analyzing the results of this study, we present the findings under three pedagogical themes: (1) content, (2) knowledge and skills, and (3) awareness and attitudes.

4.2.1. Student Perspectives by Theme

Content

The inclusion of SDG 12 into HE’s curricula is central to student readiness to address global sustainability challenges. The Q-methodology analysis of student perceptions at COB UG uncovered two factors representing differing priorities with respect to the inclusion of SDG 12 content within the undergraduate curriculum. Table 3 and Table 4 present the distinguishing and consensus statements, respectively, for the content theme for Factors 1 and 2. Both the Q-sort values (Q-SV) and the Z scores are reported for each of the 14 statements. From the overall set of statements, 12 statements were found to be statistically significant for both Factor 1 and Factor 2. As such, there is an overall indication that there are notable differences in students’ perceptions regarding the integration of SDG 12 content within the curriculum.

Moving over to the distinguishing statements reported in Table 3, Factor 1 emphasizes practical interventions and policy-driven aspects of sustainability. Responses associated with Factor 1 indicate statistically significant positive perceptions on reducing food losses across supply chains (Statement 5: Z-SCR = 1.46 *), and on the environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste (Statement 6: Z-SCR = 1.46 *). These perceptions align directly with SDG 12 targets, specifically halving per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels (Target 12.3), and ensuring environmentally sound management of chemicals and all waste throughout their life cycle (Target 12.4) [13,55]. These results suggest a curriculum that places greater emphasis on technical and regulatory aspects of sustainability, consistent with global calls for integrating such principles into HEIs across all disciplines [7,11,16,17]. On the other hand, Factor 1 respondents displayed a negative perception regarding sustainable tourism monitoring tools (Statement 10: Z-SCR = −0.49 *). This highlights a curricular gap concerning the socio-cultural dimension of consumption and broader sustainability issues. Educators should note that embedding socio-cultural content in undergraduate curricula is central to holistic sustainability HE [59]. While SDG 12 includes monitoring sustainable tourism (Target 12.b), this area is often criticized for vague or diluted action frameworks [13]. Educators should note that embedding comprehensive socio-cultural content in undergraduate curricula is central to fostering holistic sustainability in HE [7,16].

In terms of distinguishing statements reported in Table 3, Factor 2 emphasizes corporate accountability and systemic transformation. Respondents linked to this factor expressed strong positive perceptions toward halving global food waste (Statement 4: Z-SCR = 1.42 *) and integrating sustainability into corporate reporting (Statement 9: Z-SCR = 1.42 *). These perceptions directly align with SDG 12’s targets for reducing food waste (Target 12.3) and encouraging firms to adopt sustainable practices and report on sustainability (Target 12.6) [13,36]. This perspective reflects a curricular orientation toward institutional transparency and corporate responsibility, reinforcing the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) in preparing students to apply sustainability principles in professional settings and to serve as role models for responsible consumption [11]. On the contrary, Factor 2 respondents also expressed negative perceptions of sustainable public procurement (Statement 10: Z-SCR = −0.49 *) and lifestyle choices aligned with nature (Statement 11: Z-SCR = −0.49 *). These responses correspond to SDG 12 targets related to sustainable public procurement (Target 12.7) and sustainable lifestyles (Target 12.8) [13]. Such perceptions suggest a curricular underemphasis on cultivating behavioral change and institutionally oriented transformation. While education provides knowledge and skills, evidence shows that knowledge alone does not guarantee changes in student behavior [29,38]. This aligns with critiques that sustainability education is often biased toward technical solutions, while overlooking cultural and behavioral dimensions [5,17,29].

Table 3. Distinguishing Statements of the Content Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
1	Sustainable consumption and production patterns	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.49 *
3	Sustainable management and the efficient use of natural resources	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.49 *
4	Halve global food waste at the retail and consumer levels	2	0.97 *	3	1.42 *
5	Reducing food losses across the production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses	3	1.46 *	2	0.94 *
6	Environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste to reduce their release into the air, water, and soil	3	1.46 *	2	0.945 *
8	Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices	2	0.97 *	3	1.424 *
9	The importance of integrating sustainability information into corporate reporting cycles	2	0.97 *	3	1.424 *
10	Sustainable public procurement practices and their alignment with national policies and priorities	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
11	The information on living sustainably and aligning lifestyles with nature	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
12	Support developing countries in strengthening their scientific and technological capacity to achieve more sustainable patterns of consumption and production	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
13	The development and implementation of tools to monitor the impacts of sustainable tourism, including how it creates jobs and promotes local culture and products	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
14	Rationalizing inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, including the removal of market distortions and restructuring taxation to reflect environmental impacts, while considering the needs of developing countries and minimizing adverse effects on vulnerable communities	3	1.46 *	2	0.945 *

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).

Table 3. Distinguishing Statements of the Content Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
1	Sustainable consumption and production patterns	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.49 *
3	Sustainable management and the efficient use of natural resources	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.49 *
4	Halve global food waste at the retail and consumer levels	2	0.97 *	3	1.42 *
5	Reducing food losses across the production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses	3	1.46 *	2	0.94 *
6	Environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste to reduce their release into the air, water, and soil	3	1.46 *	2	0.945 *
8	Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices	2	0.97 *	3	1.424 *
9	The importance of integrating sustainability information into corporate reporting cycles	2	0.97 *	3	1.424 *
10	Sustainable public procurement practices and their alignment with national policies and priorities	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
11	The information on living sustainably and aligning lifestyles with nature	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
12	Support developing countries in strengthening their scientific and technological capacity to achieve more sustainable patterns of consumption and production	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
13	The development and implementation of tools to monitor the impacts of sustainable tourism, including how it creates jobs and promotes local culture and products	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
14	Rationalizing inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, including the removal of market distortions and restructuring taxation to reflect environmental impacts, while considering the needs of developing countries and minimizing adverse effects on vulnerable communities	3	1.46 *	2	0.945 *

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).

Table 4 presents the consensus areas identified through Q-methodology for both Factors 1 and 2, highlighting strengths in incorporating the foundational principles of SDG 12 within the curriculum. Both factors showed statistically significant positive perceptions regarding the implementation of waste prevention, recycling and reuse (Statement 7: Z-SCR = 1.44 *) and global frameworks for sustainable consumption and production (Statement 2: Z-SCR = 0.96 *). This alignment indicates a successful embedding of sustainability competencies, such as waste management [26] and systems thinking [2,17,30], in line with UNESCO’s [60] recommendations for implementing the 2030 Agenda [37]. However, despite this consensus on core principles, the differing factorial priorities reveal persistent discrepancies in student perceptions regarding the balance between technical and socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability. Prior literature finds evidence indicating that sustainability education is often biased toward technical solutions [29] or focuses on “greening campuses” rather than systematic, deep integration into curricula [26], hence limiting students’ ability to connect personal consumption behaviors with broader institutional and policy frameworks.

Table 4. Consensus Statements of the Content Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
2	Implementation of a global framework for sustainable consumption and production, where developed countries take the lead while considering the needs of developing countries	2	0.973 *	2	0.945 *
7	Reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse	3	1.460 *	3	1.424 *

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).

Table 4. Consensus Statements of the Content Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
2	Implementation of a global framework for sustainable consumption and production, where developed countries take the lead while considering the needs of developing countries	2	0.973 *	2	0.945 *
7	Reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse	3	1.460 *	3	1.424 *

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).

Moreover, research shows that simply increasing knowledge does not necessarily translate into pro-environmental behavior [29]. Overcoming this gap requires a holistic approach to sustainability education that emphasizes interconnectedness and transformative learning, engaging the “head, hands, and heart” [4,15,32,61,62]. Applying these approaches in higher education would help students develop not only sustainability-related knowledge and skills, but also the attitudes and critical thinking capabilities necessary to resolve complex sustainability issues.

These results suggest opportunities for curriculum development, particularly in addressing Factor 2’s negative perceptions presented in Table 3 regarding sustainable tourism monitoring (Statement 13) and sustainable procurement (Statement 10). Both areas underscore the need for interdisciplinary content that bridges technical knowledge with broader socio-cultural and institutional contexts [5,29]. For instance, curricula could include case studies on community-driven tourism [22] or policy simulation exercises focused on sustainable procurement practices [12]. Such approaches would enable a more comprehensive incorporation of the socio-economic dimensions of SDG 12, shifting the curriculum beyond a production-centered perspective to also address broader consumption patterns and their societal implications [5,13]. Furthermore, to enhance students’ ability to link theoretical frameworks with real-world practices, the curriculum should embrace project-based learning (PBL) [4,15,19]. Waste reduction (Statement 7), identified as a consensus area between both factors, offers a strong platform for such experiential learning [26,29]. Projects in this area could involve students in initiatives such as e-waste management systems or circular economy initiatives. By expanding the curricular scope to include these interdisciplinary and experiential dimensions, the COB can develop a curriculum that is more comprehensively aligned with SDG 12 and effectively prepare students to critically evaluate the complexities of sustainable consumption and production in various global contexts [5,15,17].

Knowledge and Skills

The development of knowledge and skills related to SDG 12 is integral to supporting students in developing competencies to address systemic sustainability problems. Applying Q-methodology to the perceptions of students at COB UG (Table 5 and Table 6) revealed varying priorities in the pedagogical approach and skill development, as well as strengths and crucial gaps in the curriculum. For distinguishing statements reported in Table 5, we find divergent views in pedagogical preferences. More specifically, Factor 1, representing the learning preferences of roughly one-third of students, showed a stronger direction toward traditional, lecture-based teaching (Statement 15: Z-SCR = 0.97 *). Students aligned with this factor valued the structured delivery of theoretical, technical, and applied content. Although some research suggests that structured teaching can be helpful for mastering complex subjects [33,37], this preference contradicts widespread findings that traditional lecturing is ineffective in promoting essential sustainability competencies [17,22]. Consequently, Factor 1 also exhibited statistically significant negative perceptions toward active (Statement 16: Z-SCR = −1.46 *), interdisciplinary collaborative (Statements 17–18: Z-SCR = −0.49 *), and systems thinking (Statement 21: Z-SCR = −0.97 *) pedagogies. This pattern points to a curriculum overly dependent on passive forms of teaching, which risks limiting the development of essential collaborative problem-solving skills [5,17,19] and systems analysis abilities [17,18], which are necessary to address the interconnected challenges of SDG 12. This highlights a curricular under-representation of approaches that bridge theoretical knowledge with practical application and behavioral change.

Table 5. Distinguishing Statements of the Knowledge and Skills Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
15	Lecturing and exposition in class of theoretical, technical, and practical background by the teacher	2	0.97 *	3	1.424 *
16	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 studies collaborating together	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
17	Collaborations with other universities within intercultural groups	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
18	Collaborations with other fields of study in your university	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
20	External visits to companies to learn the real problems first-hand	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
21	Systems thinking—that is, the ability to analyze complex systems, context, relationships, and phenomena, dealing with uncertainty and application of modeling (qualitative and quantitative) to identify possible paths and solutions about the SDG 12 phenomena	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
22	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, about the SDG 12 phenomena	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
23	Normative thinking—that is, the ability to understand and reflect on the norms and values that underlie actions about SDG 12, and the ability to negotiate in conflicting and contradictory contexts in terms of uncertainty	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *

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).

Table 5. Distinguishing Statements of the Knowledge and Skills Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
15	Lecturing and exposition in class of theoretical, technical, and practical background by the teacher	2	0.97 *	3	1.424 *
16	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 studies collaborating together	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
17	Collaborations with other universities within intercultural groups	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
18	Collaborations with other fields of study in your university	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
20	External visits to companies to learn the real problems first-hand	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
21	Systems thinking—that is, the ability to analyze complex systems, context, relationships, and phenomena, dealing with uncertainty and application of modeling (qualitative and quantitative) to identify possible paths and solutions about the SDG 12 phenomena	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
22	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, about the SDG 12 phenomena	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
23	Normative thinking—that is, the ability to understand and reflect on the norms and values that underlie actions about SDG 12, and the ability to negotiate in conflicting and contradictory contexts in terms of uncertainty	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *

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).

In contrast, Factor 2 displayed a marginally higher acceptance of lecture-centered teaching (Statement 15: Z-SCR = 1.42 *), despite evidence in the extant literature indicating its ineffectiveness for developing critical sustainability competencies [17]. Both Factors 1 and 2 expressed shared negative perceptions toward external company visits (Statement 20: Z-SCR = −1.45 * for Factor 2) and anticipatory thinking (Statement 22: Z-SCR = −0.97 * for Factor 2; Statement 21: Z-SCR = −0.97 * for Factor 1 in previous turn; Statement 16: Q-SV= −2 for Factor 2), highlighting a need for curricula that effectively cultivates future-oriented competencies and prepares students for complex climate scenarios [18]. Moreover, both factors shared skepticism toward normative thinking (Statement 23: Z-SCR = −1.46 * for Factor 1, Z-SCR = −0.97 * for Factor 2), indicating curricular gaps in fostering ethical reasoning and value-based decision-making [11]. Unfortunately, many HEIs continue to prioritize short-term economic metrics, often neglecting social and environmental dimensions, or focus on technical solutions rather than systemic integration of sustainability [5,16,26]. This calls for an educational approach that not only challenges traditional economic paradigms but also fosters critical thinking regarding the interconnectedness of social, environmental, and economic systems. Although environmental knowledge is a necessary condition for pro-environmental behavior, it is often insufficient without corresponding shifts in attitudes and values [29,63]. The persistence of these student perceptions suggests that some curricula remain overly reliant on passive pedagogy, limiting their ability to equip students with the holistic competencies required to address complex sustainability issues [17].

Regarding the consensus statements presented in Table 6, both factors identified a gap in experimental learning. In particular, students expressed shared concerns about the inadequacy of opportunities to engage with real companies and experts (Statement 19: Z-SCR ≈ −0.97 *). This consensus implies a system-wide deficiency in effectively linking theoretical knowledge with real-world practice [26]. This finding reinforces arguments in the extant literature highlighting the importance of industry collaboration and experiential learning for bridging the “knowledge-action divide” in sustainability education [64,65]. The lack of engagement with external stakeholders can negatively impact students’ ability to contextualize SDG 12 challenges, such as sustainable supply chain management and the circular economy, within a real-life business setting. Experiential learning, which includes activities like service learning, community-based projects, and real-world problem-solving, is widely recognized for its educational value and effectiveness in preparing students for real-world challenges [15,22]. The lack of engagement with external stakeholders, such as businesses and community organizations, can significantly impact students’ ability to contextualize complex SDG 12 challenges within a practical business setting [5].

Table 6. Consensus Statements of the Knowledge and Skills Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
19	Interactions and partnerships with real businesses and experts in the subject who come to give master classes, courses, talks, or workshops about real-world business challenges	−2	−0.973 *	−2	−0.971 *

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).

Table 6. Consensus Statements of the Knowledge and Skills Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
19	Interactions and partnerships with real businesses and experts in the subject who come to give master classes, courses, talks, or workshops about real-world business challenges	−2	−0.973 *	−2	−0.971 *

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).

These findings carry important implications for curriculum design. Specifically, the findings reveal a tension between students’ preferences for traditional pedagogy and the pedagogical innovations required to enhance SDG 12 competencies. With respect to such preferences, students value lecturing (Statement 15: Z-SCR = 1.42 *) as an effective approach to delivering basics. However, the extant literature suggests that traditional lecturing methods generally prove ineffective for developing critical sustainability competencies [17,22]. Despite the recognized effectiveness of active learning in promoting sustainability competencies, students expressed negative views on active learning (Statement 16: Z-SCR ≈ −1.46 *). This indicates a potential misalignment between student preferences and the pedagogical strategies most important for sustainability education [17]. Similarly, results are observed for systems thinking (Statement 21: Z-SCR ≈ −0.97 *), anticipatory thinking (Statement 22: Z-SCR ≈ −1.46 *), and normative thinking (Statement 21: Z-SCR ≈ −1.46 *), which are also core competencies crucial for problem-solving in sustainability contexts [17,18,22].

Regarding anticipatory and normative thinking, the marginalization of anticipatory thinking (Statement 22: Z-SCR = −0.97 * for Factor 2; Statement 21: Z-SCR = −0.97 * for Factor 1) and normative thinking (Statement 23: Z-SCR = −1.46 * for Factor 1, Z-SCR = −0.97 * for Factor 2) signals a critical need to embed these competencies into the curriculum. Absence of such competencies implies inadequate preparation for future complex climate scenarios and reveals curricular gaps in fostering ethical reasoning and value-based decision-making [11]. As a solution, curricula should integrate ethical reasoning through scenario-building exercises or debates on contemporary SDG 12 issues. For instance, engaging in discussions about balancing fossil-fuel subsidy reforms (Statement 14) with social equity concerns (a contentious SDG 12 issue) would challenge students to critically evaluate complex trade-offs. Such pedagogical approaches would encourage students to critically analyze sustainability issues [15,62]. Finally, in terms of overall curriculum development, addressing these gaps would help in developing a curriculum that not only delivers SDG 12 knowledge but equips students with the skills necessary to apply sustainability practices in different contexts [2,30].

Awareness and Attitudes

One important outcome of encouraging student awareness and attitudes toward SDG 12 is their potential to become advocates for responsible consumption and production in both professional and social settings. Our analyses of student perceptions at COB UG reveal a complex paradox: while some students align strongly with sustainability ideals, others approach SDG 12 through a pragmatic, economically driven lens. Both groups acknowledged the broader social benefits of SDG 12, yet differed in their perceptions of its feasibility, disciplinary relevance, and application. Turning to the distinguishing statements presented in Table 7, Factor 1 students demonstrated an idealistic stance, rejecting the notion that SDG 12 is impractical for real-life business (Statement 27: Z-SCR = −1.46 *) or merely used as a marketing tool (Statement 28: Z-SCR = −1.46 *). Higher education should support the transition toward sustainability through research focused on promoting the SDGs, following the principles of responsible research in business and management [5]. Their support for curriculum-wide SDG 12 integration (Statement 37: Z-SCR = 0.49 *), and their conviction that SDG 12 will benefit both their careers and society (Statement 32: Z-SCR = 1.46 *), mirrors broader appeals for embedding sustainability education across professions [1,2,11,17]. Such integration is crucial for cultivating moral competencies and fostering ethical decision-making to promote sustainable consumption and a positive societal impact [37]. However, their uncertainty regarding their specific discipline’s contribution to SDG 12 (Statement 30: Z-SCR = −0.49 *) suggests a gap between personal values and perceived academic relevance. This highlights a need for educational curricula to establish clearer connections between sustainability and discipline-specific competencies [7,26,29].

Conversely, Factor 2 students exhibited a more pragmatic, economically focused perspective. They prioritized profit maximization (Statement 26: Z-SCR = 0.47 *) and favored a fragmented approach to corporate responsibility (Statement 29: Z-SCR = 0.47 *). This outlook is consistent with a traditional business education focused on economic paradigms, which can lead to fragmented approaches to sustainability [1,25,26]. This group also doubted the disciplinary relevance of SDG 12 (Statement 31: Z-SCR = −1.45 *) and preferred stand-alone sustainability courses (Statement 36: Z-SCR = −1.45 *). This preference indicates a separate view of sustainability, with limited explicit integration into core subjects [1]. While some studies acknowledge the potential effectiveness of standalone courses in equipping students with necessary skills [7,66], other findings in the literature indicate a stronger emphasis on embedding sustainability within existing modules or a preference for comprehensive integration across all university subjects [5,11,29].

The differences between these idealistic and pragmatic viewpoints reflect a broader challenge for HE to bridge the gap between economic growth and environmental sustainability [1,11]. SDG 12 itself, in seeking sustainable consumption and production, often focuses on increasing net welfare gains from economic activities by reducing resource use, while also aiming for higher levels of consumption, assuming that economic growth can be decoupled from environmental degradation. This highlights a fundamental tension within the SDG itself. This calls for pedagogical innovations that reconcile advocacy with pragmatic disciplinary relevance, bridging the gap between theory and practice to address the SDGs holistically [1,26]. HEIs must go beyond superficial integration to embed sustainability competencies across all disciplines, including concepts such as green consumer behavior analysis in marketing curricula [1,5,29]. This also requires investing in faculty training to deliver transdisciplinary content, and challenging traditional, lecture-based methods, which are less effective for fostering sustainability competencies [17,22].

Table 7. Distinguishing Statements of the Awareness and Attitudes Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
24	Contributing to achieving SDG 12 can help overcome conflicts between businesses and local communities, benefiting society and the country as a whole	2	0.97 *	2	1.424 *
26	In business, the search for SDG 12 can never be above the maximization of economic benefit, which is the main priority to be achieved by a company	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
27	It is not practical to apply SDG 12 to real-world business	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
28	SDG 12 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	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
29	Each company or country should ensure that decent work exists in its area of responsibility, and not worry about what happens in other companies or countries	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
30	My field of study should play an important role in achieving SDG 12	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
31	SDG 12 is not very important in my discipline because we should be focusing more on economic than social issues	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
32	Integrating SDG 12 into education in my discipline helps us play a positive role in the world around it	3	1.46 *	2	0.945 *
33	Integrating SDG 12 into my discipline will be beneficial in my future career	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
34	SDG 12 is more relevant to other disciplines	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
35	The level of integration of SDG 12 into my discipline is satisfactory	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
36	The appropriate approach to integrating SDG 12 into my discipline is in a new stand-alone and separate course	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
37	The appropriate approach to integrating SDG 12 into my discipline is to integrate it throughout the curriculum	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *

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).

Table 7. Distinguishing Statements of the Awareness and Attitudes Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
24	Contributing to achieving SDG 12 can help overcome conflicts between businesses and local communities, benefiting society and the country as a whole	2	0.97 *	2	1.424 *
26	In business, the search for SDG 12 can never be above the maximization of economic benefit, which is the main priority to be achieved by a company	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
27	It is not practical to apply SDG 12 to real-world business	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
28	SDG 12 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	−3	−1.46 *	−2	−0.971 *
29	Each company or country should ensure that decent work exists in its area of responsibility, and not worry about what happens in other companies or countries	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
30	My field of study should play an important role in achieving SDG 12	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
31	SDG 12 is not very important in my discipline because we should be focusing more on economic than social issues	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
32	Integrating SDG 12 into education in my discipline helps us play a positive role in the world around it	3	1.46 *	2	0.945 *
33	Integrating SDG 12 into my discipline will be beneficial in my future career	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *
34	SDG 12 is more relevant to other disciplines	−1	−0.49 *	1	0.466 *
35	The level of integration of SDG 12 into my discipline is satisfactory	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
36	The appropriate approach to integrating SDG 12 into my discipline is in a new stand-alone and separate course	−2	−0.97 *	−3	−1.45 *
37	The appropriate approach to integrating SDG 12 into my discipline is to integrate it throughout the curriculum	1	0.49 *	−1	−0.492 *

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).

Turning to the distinguishing statements, there is a shared recognition of SDG 12’s societal value. Students across both factors were in strong agreement that responsible consumption and production can help reconcile conflicts between business and community interests (Statement 24: Z-SCR = 0.97 * for Factor 1; Z-SCR = 1.42 * for Factor 2), reflecting a wider awareness of sustainability’s potential in promoting equitable development. University students generally demonstrate a high awareness of sustainability concepts and the SDGs [1,2,3,16,21,30,63], often motivated by a desire to contribute to a better environment and society. SDG 12, focusing on responsible consumption and production, is seen as fundamental for achieving a green economy and mitigating negative impacts on climate, environment, and public health [36], directly linking to its societal value in resolving real-world conflicts between businesses and communities [11,15].

Turning to the results displayed in Table 8, a neutral consensus on the economic risks of failing to achieve SDG 12 (Statement 25: Z-SCR ≈ 0) suggests a critical gap in understanding systemic threats such as resource depletion or supply-chain disruptions that are also at the heart of sustainability discourse. While SDG 12 encourages reducing unsustainable resource usage and promotes efficient management of natural resources [13,36,55], the literature indicates a complexity in reconciling economic, social, and environmental aspects [1,10,15,36]. The students’ neutral stance implies that they acknowledge the moral imperative of SDG 1, reflecting their desire to foster a better society [2,30] and contribute to the common good [15,37], but may undervalue its direct material importance in safeguarding global stability and economic resilience by overlooking the economic interdependencies and potential negative externalities of unsustainable practices [1,15,36]. This highlights a need for educational approaches that connect ethical dimensions of sustainability with its practical economic consequences [4].

Table 8. Consensus Statements of the Awareness and Attitudes Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
25	The non-achievement of SDG 12 contributes negatively to the economy and the country’s development	0	0	0	−0.013

Both the factor Q-Sort Value (Q-SV) and the Z-Score (Z-SCR) are shown.

Table 8. Consensus Statements of the Awareness and Attitudes Theme for Factors 1 and 2.

#No.	Statements	Factor 1		Factor 2
		Q-SV	Z-SCR	Q-SV	Z-SCR
25	The non-achievement of SDG 12 contributes negatively to the economy and the country’s development	0	0	0	−0.013

Both the factor Q-Sort Value (Q-SV) and the Z-Score (Z-SCR) are shown.

Additionally, the observed consensus (Statement 35) on inadequate SDG 12 integration (Z-SCR = −0.97 * for Factor 1; Z-SCR = −1.45 * for Factor 2) points to urgent institutional gaps in embedding sustainability [11,12,21]. For Factor 1, integrating sustainability across curricula (Statement 37) aligns with best practices for building ethical and eco-decision-making through interdisciplinary exposure as documented in the literature. This approach cultivates students’ understanding of how their actions impact the environment and society [3,16,21], encouraging a shift in attitudes and behaviors toward environmental issues [63]. Conversely, Factor 2’s preference for a “stand-alone course” (Statement 36) signals a need for foundational training to clarify the ambiguity around SDG 12, as a significant portion of students still have limited understanding of the SDGs [4,16,21,25]. For example, some studies in the literature acknowledge the use of separate sustainability modules, especially when core curriculum space is limited [5], or when students lack sufficient prior knowledge [63]. Tailoring SDG 12 to specific disciplines can contextualize the abstract principle, demonstrating its relevance to real-world economic issues [3,5,15,36]. For instance, integrating responsible consumption and production concepts into marketing curricula highlights their role in promoting sustainable lifestyles and addressing consumer behavior [5,15]. Finally, we posit that these pedagogical approaches may enable students to engage with real-world problems and develop relevant solutions, moving beyond mere theoretical knowledge to influence their skills and attitudes [2,4,15,30]. Practical experiences, such as analyzing environmental data or developing sustainability strategies, may cultivate critical thinking and problem-solving abilities crucial for global and local sustainability issues [21].

5. Conclusions

The integration of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, which focuses on responsible consumption and production, into higher education (HE) curricula is crucial for preparing future leaders to tackle global sustainability challenges. Despite its importance, there is a research gap in understanding how students perceive the integration of SDG 12 in higher education institutions (HEIs). This study addresses this gap by using Q-methodology, a mixed-method approach that combines quantitative factor analysis with qualitative interpretation, to uncover nuanced viewpoints and inform educational interventions. The findings reveal that while students generally recognize SDG 12 as a societal imperative, they are divided into more idealist and pragmatist camps regarding its implementation. Idealists emphasize ethical and societal imperatives, while pragmatists focus on practical and economic applications. This division highlights the need for a blended approach in curricula, integrating sustainability into core modules and offering specialized electives to cater to diverse interests in the UAE context. Broadening the understanding of SDG 12’s economic benefits, such as resource efficiency, reduced costs, and risk mitigation, through data-driven modules and applied learning, can help reframe SDG 12 as directly relevant to students’ professional futures. Strengthening curricular integration and fostering interdisciplinary connections can enable students to view SDG 12 not only as an ethical need but also as a strategic asset for their careers. This requires pedagogical innovation, strong institutional commitment, and a nuanced approach to embedding sustainability across disciplines to equip graduates to navigate and lead sustainable transformations in an increasingly complex world. Such efforts necessitate a shift toward a holistic university approach, ensuring that sustainability is an integral part of university governance, planning, and operations. Moreover, we call on HEIs to enhance sustainability integration through embedding SDG principles across existing courses rather than limiting them to stand-alone courses, to promote interdisciplinary understanding. Additionally, HEIs should consider exploring industry partnerships to expose students to real-world sustainability challenges in professional settings and conduct regular curriculum audits to assess how sustainability content is distributed across programs and identify gaps in SDG coverage.

The study aligns with its initial objectives by exploring student perceptions and identifying effective educational strategies for SDG 12 integration. The use of Q-methodology, which is particularly suited for in-depth sand context-specific subjective analysis even with limited sample sizes, enabled the identification of distinct student archetypes (“Idealists” and “Pragmatists”) within the specific context of a UAE business school [43,44]. This methodological choice is well-supported by prior empirical studies investigating sustainability integration in higher education using similar approaches [1,46,47,65,66,67,68,69,70]. The evidence supports the need for a holistic approach to sustainability education, refining the expectation that traditional pedagogies alone are sufficient. The findings contradict the notion that sustainability can be effectively taught through isolated courses, emphasizing the value of interdisciplinary and experiential learning.

This study does not come without limitations. First, the single-institution design, while providing rich contextual insights aligned with case study methodology [71], limits the geographic scope, meaning results may not apply to other universities or diverse regions. This approach is consistent with prior research focusing on cultural and institutional dynamics in sustainability education [1,68,70], but future studies should expand to multi-institutional and cross-national samples to enhance comparability. Second, the relatively small sample size and demographic constraints may affect the generalizability of the findings. While Q-methodology provides rich, in-depth insights, future research should incorporate participants from multiple universities to reduce potential cultural bias and improve comparative validity across higher education contexts. The identified archetypes are highly contextualized to the specific curriculum and institutional culture, particularly influenced by the UAE’s unique institutional and cultural setting, as framed by institutional theory [72]. This context is further explored in studies examining sustainability integration across distinct cultural and institutional environments [2,3,7,8,32,73,74,75]. Third, reliance on self-reported data may introduce biases, such as social desirability bias. Two additional contextual factors further shape the findings: prior curricular exposure and gender composition. All participants completed a mandatory sustainability course, creating a controlled setting for studying nuanced attitude formation [7,76,77]. This preconditioned receptivity may restrict applicability to populations with lower sustainability literacy. The gender distribution (predominantly female) aligns with institutional demographics but may influence perspective salience, as recent research indicates gendered differences in environmental concern and policy support [78,79,80]. The discussion section explicitly addresses how these demographic factors influence the identified perspectives, including the risk of “feminization of sustainability narratives” and potential attitude-behavior gaps induced by local cultural norms. These constraints collectively highlight the need for caution in extrapolating the results to broader contexts.

Future studies could investigate the long-term effects of integrated sustainability education on student competencies and career outcomes across diverse HEIs. While the full impact on professional lives may take years to manifest, HEIs have a crucial role to play in shaping future leaders with essential competencies such as systems thinking, critical thinking, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Incentives and rewards can also positively influence student engagement in sustainable initiatives. Moreover, to ensure generalizability, future research may replicate interventions across diverse HEI types and geographical contexts, as effectiveness varies due to national policies and cultural values. Future multi-institutional and cross-regional comparative studies could employ frameworks such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to evaluate geopolitical mediators [47]. Additionally, exploring the impact of specific pedagogical innovations, such as project-based learning (PBL) and industry partnerships, could further elucidate effective strategies for embedding SDG 12 in HE.

Ultimately, this study highlights the critical role of comprehensive sustainability education in achieving SDGs. By highlighting the diverse student perspectives and the need for innovative pedagogical approaches, this study advances our understanding of how HEIs can equip future leaders to navigate and lead sustainable transformations in an increasingly complex world.