Fostering SDG Content Integration in the Economics and Business Undergraduate Curriculum: A Faculty-Driven Mapping Approach

Abstract

The Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB UM) initiated a project to align its undergraduate study program with sustainable development principles. This involved mapping the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the curriculum, using recommended keywords and faculty assessments. The exercise aimed to objectively showcase current sustainability integration and to identify areas for enhanced sustainable practice infusion. The method entailed both the direct and indirect consideration of SDG content. This endeavor heightened faculty awareness and enthusiasm for incorporating the SDGs, highlighting the significance of aligning academic programs with global sustainability objectives. This study has offered a framework for similar institutions aiming to boost sustainability through curriculum mapping and active faculty engagement.

1. Introduction

The United Nations’ introduction of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 has served to reinforce the global commitment to sustainable development. These goals provide a comprehensive call to action to address poverty, protect the environment, and enhance economic well-being for all by 2030 [1]. It is of the utmost importance to recognize the pivotal role that education—in particular, within higher education institutions (HEIs)—plays in this mission. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as outlined by the United Nations, identifies education as a critical enabler for achieving all of the SDGs. This emphasis serves to highlight the pivotal role played by HEIs in the promotion of sustainability. The SDGs provide a diverse set of social, economic, environmental, and educational objectives, which enable HEIs to align their curriculum and pedagogical practices with global sustainability initiatives [2,3]. Higher education institutions play a pivotal role in promoting sustainable practices and principles and in shaping the values, knowledge, and skills of future societal leaders [4].

Integrating the SDGs into academic curricula represents a strategic approach to enhancing sustainability literacy among students and faculties [5]. This action could bolster the academic experience of students and align with the wider global sustainability agendas [6,7]. Achieving full sustainability integration in tertiary education remains challenging due to administrative obstacles, operational roadblocks, and the occasional lack of sustainability awareness among faculties and students [4]. Overcoming these challenges demands innovative strategies and collaborative efforts from all stakeholders in the educational sphere [8]. The widespread employment of conventional teaching methods in many HEIs can impede the interdisciplinary quality of sustainability education, emphasizing the necessity for more integrated pedagogical frameworks. By adopting interdisciplinary methods, a holistic understanding of different academic disciplines can be achieved, a vision that has been endorsed by the United Nations since 2015 [9,10]. The integration of the SDGs into different academic disciplines, including subjects such as physical education, further demonstrates the broad relevance of sustainability education. As Boned-Gómez et al. (2024) [11] illustrated, embedding SDGs in curricula promotes a holistic approach, which prepares students to address global challenges in different educational contexts.

Aware of the importance of this alignment, the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Maribor (FEB UM) undertook a mission to harmonize its undergraduate study program (a three-year professional higher education program, Business Administration, 180 ECTS) with sustainable development principles. This resulted in the commencement of a pilot project to incorporate the SDGs into the curriculum. A bespoke methodology was employed for the project, which was based on appraisals by faculty members and a group of keywords. The keywords were meticulously chosen from the list created by the University of Worcester’s Big Benchmarking Tool, a resource specifically designed for evaluating sustainability within higher education curricula. This tool, originally developed in collaboration with the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, provides a set of empirically validated keywords that are directly linked to SDG themes, thus ensuring the accurate identification of relevant content. These keywords enabled us to construct a comprehensive map of SDG topics within the curriculum. The principal objectives were to ascertain the extent of the current integration of SDG themes and to stimulate greater interest and enthusiasm among faculty members to incorporate such subjects. All faculty members who participated in the mapping project were provided with feedback, which enabled them to compare the results of their courses with those of their peers. This approach facilitated collective evaluation and refinement, thereby fostering a sense of collaboration.

The project’s objective was to advance a sustainable ethos within FEB UM by fostering dialogues and collaborative endeavors among the faculty, administrators, and students, with the aim of developing a more environmentally conscious academic and operational model. Moreover, the initiative sought to furnish practical insights for other HEIs that are contemplating the integration of sustainability into their curriculum, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on sustainability in tertiary education. In conclusion, education in sustainability should address challenges related to social, economic, and environmental factors, equipping students and professionals with the tools to create a more promising future [12].

The following sections will examine the literature on the significance of incorporating the SDGs into higher education. This section will elaborate on the methodology employed in this pilot study, present the outcomes of the SDG mapping exercise, and examine the implications of these findings for enhancing sustainability integration in the undergraduate study program at FEB UM and, potentially, at comparable institutions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education

In 2015, the United Nations initiated the SDGs, a set of 17 interrelated objectives aimed at achieving a more sustainable and improved future by 2030. These goals were devised with a comprehensive approach to sustainability, providing a robust framework for addressing global challenges and becoming essential to both individuals and institutions. HEIs exert a considerable influence on the formation of future leaders’ attitudes, behaviors, and competencies; therefore, it falls upon them to assume a distinctive obligation and a crucial function in the propagation and implementation of the SDGs. The incorporation of the SDGs into the curricula of HEIs allows for the alignment of their educational missions with global sustainability directives, thereby, amplifying their societal impact [13,14].

The integration of the SDGs into the curricula of HEIs offers a number of advantages. Such an approach enhances the academic experience of students, facilitating interdisciplinary learning and critical thinking. Furthermore, it equips students with the skills to navigate complex challenges in their lives [15]. Moreover, it establishes an auspicious milieu for research oriented towards sustainability, community involvement, and policy promotion [16]. However, the advantages of this approach are not without their own set of challenges. Higher education institutions frequently encounter challenges such as faculty apathy or limited comprehension; operational hindrances; and pedagogical approaches, which are constrained by convention. It is not uncommon for faculty members to express reluctance, citing concerns over increased workloads or ambiguities around integrating SDGs into current course offerings [17].

Numerous HEIs around the world have formulated and implemented diverse strategies for fostering SDG integration. These range from implementing dedicated sustainability courses to integrating SDG elements into pre-existing courses, offering training initiatives for faculties and even forming specialized sustainability committees to spearhead these integration efforts. A notable example of such efforts is the Curriculum Refresh Program at Nottingham Trent University, which has been specifically designed to integrate the SDGs [18]. It is important to acknowledge that the impact of SDG integration goes beyond academic institutions. HEIs play a significant role in promoting sustainability at both regional and international levels by aligning with the SDGs. Furthermore, through facilitating a steadfast commitment to achieving the SDGs, educators cultivate a strengthened sense of societal accountability among faculties and students, thus promoting the emergence of a more equitable and enduring worldwide community [14].

2.2. Previous Studies on Curriculum Mapping

Curriculum mapping is a methodical process that facilitates a comprehensive understanding and organization of diverse curriculum elements, including learning aims, teaching approaches, evaluation methods, and content distribution [19]. The fundamental objective of curriculum mapping is to ensure a coherent and coordinated approach between the intended educational goals and the actual educational operations. This is achieved by fostering uniformity across distinct courses and facilitating stakeholder engagement [20]. In the field of sustainability education, academics have conducted extensive research into the utility of curriculum mapping. For example, Barth and Michelsen (2013) [21] investigated the potential for integrating sustainability competencies into higher education curricula through curriculum mapping. Similarly, Ferrer-Balas et al. (2009) [22] investigated the incorporation of sustainability concepts in engineering education through the use of curriculum mapping. Recent developments in this field include the use of a keyword scanning tool by Adams et al. (2023) [23] to assess the coverage of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in learning outcomes. In a meta-study comprising 131 global case studies, Weiss (2021) [24] expanded the scope to encompass the intricacies of integrating sustainability into HEI curriculum change processes. This extensive approach revealed a range of strategies that contribute to the institutionalization of sustainability curricula in HEIs.

Numerous scholars, including Cotton et al. (2007) [25], Lozano et al. (2017) [26], Buckley and Michel (2020) [27], Wiek et al. (2011) [28], Abdul-Wahab et al. (2003) [29], and Vincent and Suh (2017) [30], have significantly advanced this field. Their combined research highlights the pedagogy, learning outcomes, and integration of sustainability issues in higher education institutions. A recurring theme in these studies is the use of mixed methods approaches, involving the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. The popular methods for curriculum mapping identified by Rieckmann (2012) [31] included interviews, surveys, document analyses, and bespoke software tools. The consistency that has emerged from these academic investigations highlights the crucial function of curriculum mapping in determining the extent of sustainability integration in curricula [21]. Such methods and tools help to identify gaps; allow for the improved development and integration of sustainability concepts; and, ultimately, promote the continuous development of educational programs [22].

Despite the existing literature, there appears to be a paucity of longitudinal research exploring the long-term impact of curriculum mapping on sustainability education. Furthermore, there have been minimal investigations into the difficulties encountered by faculties when implementing curriculum mapping, or the comparative efficacy of the extensive range of mapping techniques and tools at their disposal [31].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Method Justification

The theoretical framework of this study was constructed using a distinctive methodology to map the SDGs incorporated into the curriculum. The method was based on the keyword recommendations put forth by the University of Worcester and was consistent with the Principles for Responsible Management Education initiative. The framework constituted a two-part survey, which assessed the integration of SDG-related topics in courses, both directly and indirectly, by faculty members. This two-stage assessment approach was implemented with the objective of acquiring a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which the SDGs were integrated into the curriculum. The initial stage of this study focused on direct inclusion, while the second stage investigated indirect inclusion through the use of case studies. To facilitate the process, faculty members were provided with a catalogue of SDG-specific keywords, including Developing Countries, Economic Resources, Equality, and numerous others for SDG 1. They subsequently evaluated the content of their courses based on these keywords across three levels: not addressed, partially addressed, or deeply addressed.

The framework was developed with clear and unambiguous objectives. As a primarily quantitative approach, this study sought to provide objective measures of SDG integration levels through a structured survey, while collecting faculty feedback in a standardized format. The primary objective was to enhance the awareness and comprehension of the faculty with regard to the significance of the SDGs in the curriculum. Our framework was consistent with the current literature, emphasizing the importance of integrating the SDGs into higher education. This approach aligned with the findings of previous research, as evidenced by the studies conducted by Deo et al. (2024) [32]. Furthermore, our framework was fully aligned with the broader initiatives that aim to integrate SDGs into university curricula. This was evident from the prioritization of an assessment of the current content of courses against the SDGs, with a view to identifying prospective areas for integration.

The theoretical framework facilitated the acquisition of valuable insights into the current status of SDG integration within the undergraduate study program. This resulted in enhanced awareness and a reinforced commitment to the significance of the SDGs. This commitment was evident in several key documents, including the faculty’s updated strategic development plan [33]; the AACSB re-accreditation reports under Standards 8 and 9; and the inaugural SIP report, as signatories to the PRME initiative. Future research could expand on these findings by incorporating qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or a thematic analysis, to gain deeper insights into faculty perspectives on SDG integration. To enhance the elucidation of the value of our approach, a comparative analysis with other theoretical frameworks could be conducted. Moreover, future research may involve the evaluation of alternative frameworks that focus on sustainability education and curriculum development, with a view to distinguishing methodologies and evaluating their effectiveness in attaining analogous goals.

3.2. Mapping Keywords

The keyword-based mapping methodology in this study drew from the Big Benchmarking Tool developed by students at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in collaboration with the University of Worcester and Kingston University. This tool was designed to support universities in assessing the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within their curricula by analyzing both direct and indirect sustainability content. The tool comprised two main components: the Curriculum Tool, which evaluates sustainability coverage in courses, and the Research Tool, which focuses on sustainability-related research. This study primarily employed the Curriculum Tool, adapted for use at FEB UM.

The original set of keywords used in the tool was derived from a previous research initiative and refined through further validation efforts. Keywords were extracted and validated from the United Nations’ “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” document, resulting in a comprehensive list tailored to SDG mapping. After removing the keywords that caused too many false positives and expanding the list with terms from Australian universities, the tool reached a stable level of accuracy. This validated set, which was expanded to 322 keywords and phrases, covered all 17 SDGs and provided a reliable foundation for analyzing sustainability content in course descriptions.

At FEB UM, this study focused on evaluating how SDG-linked keywords appear in the curriculum, using a set of 189 keywords that align with the university’s focus areas. We analyzed 71 undergraduate courses by identifying and counting occurrences of keywords across three levels: not addressed, partially addressed, and deeply addressed. Course descriptions and syllabi served as the primary sources for this analysis, enabling a structured evaluation of sustainability-related content within the formal curriculum. Additionally, the study incorporated a two-stage appraisal strategy to enhance faculty involvement. In the first stage, educators reviewed SDG content in their courses using a pre-set list of keywords, while, in the second stage, we evaluated case studies that could indirectly cover SDG-related themes. This combination allowed for a holistic view of how sustainability is represented across both theoretical and applied components of the curriculum.

The keyword counting process and the faculty’s course evaluations were conducted using Microsoft Forms, with the data being processed in Microsoft Excel to generate both tabular and graphical results. This method facilitated a straightforward analysis of SDG inclusion, quantified the level of SDG integration, and highlighted areas for potential improvement. This approach aligned with previous findings in sustainability mapping, such as those of Creswell & Creswell (2017) [34], which emphasized simplicity and usability in data collection tools. Our intent was that this adaptable methodology could serve as a streamlined model for future research, allowing the longitudinal tracking of SDG integration over time and promoting ongoing curriculum improvements consistent with sustainability education goals. This approach aligned with the perspectives of Rieckmann (2012) [31], who emphasized the importance of fostering future-oriented competencies in higher education, particularly through longitudinal and systematic approaches to sustainability curriculum development.

3.3. Questionnaire Implementation

The questionnaire in this study served as a tool to assess faculty members’ awareness of and engagement with SDG-related content within the undergraduate curriculum. The development and deployment of the questionnaire were conducted systematically to ensure methodological rigor. Below, we outline the sample population, questionnaire design and validation, and data collection process.

The survey targeted the faculty members engaged in the undergraduate program at FEB UM, particularly those teaching courses with potential alignment to SDG themes. A total of all faculty members participated, representing a diverse range of disciplines within the fields of economics and business. This group encompassed individuals with varying levels of experience in integrating SDG principles into course content, thereby providing a comprehensive overview of SDG-related pedagogical practices within the faculty.

The questionnaire was designed with a dual focus: (1) to measure faculty members’ familiarity with sustainability and SDG concepts on a five-point Likert scale, and (2) to assess the presence of SDG content in their courses, based on a standardized list of SDG-linked keywords. To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by an expert panel within the faculty, allowing for a refinement of the questions regarding clarity and alignment with the study’s objectives. Additionally, a pilot test was conducted with a subset of faculty members, which confirmed the reliability of the questions and helped to eliminate potential ambiguities, thereby enhancing the instrument’s robustness. Data were collected in November 2022 using Microsoft Forms, which facilitated structured and consistent data entry. Anonymity was maintained to encourage candid responses and to minimize potential bias. The collected data were subsequently processed and analyzed using Microsoft Excel, enabling both tabular and graphical representations of the findings. This analysis allowed for the quantification of SDG-related content coverage across the curriculum and provided insights into faculty members’ readiness to expand SDG content in their courses. For transparency and replicability, the list of keywords is included as Appendix A.

4. Results

In this section, we present the findings of our investigation, emphasizing the integration of SDGs within the curricula of diverse undergraduate courses. The primary objective was to discern the extent of SDG integration—whether they were partially or deeply addressed. Faculty members were tasked with evaluating the content of their courses based on keywords that corresponded to the SDGs. They rated the content across three distinct levels: not addressed (0), partially addressed (1), or deeply addressed (2).

• Not addressed (0): this rating was applied when no relevant SDG content was found in the course.
• Partially addressed (1): this rating indicated that SDG-related content was covered at a basic or introductory level, with limited exploration or application in the course material.
• Deeply addressed (2): this rating signified that SDG topics were central to the course and thoroughly explored.

Table 1. Integration of SDGs based on keyword analysis in FEB UM’s undergraduate study program.

		Keyword Count of Partially Addressed Topics Within the Course	Keyword Count of Deeply Addressed Topics Within the Course	Maximum Possible Keyword Count *	% of Partially Addressed Keywords	% of Deeply Addressed Keywords
No poverty	SDG1	482	89	1704	28.3%	5.2%
Zero hunger	SDG2	238	32	1278	18.6%	2.5%
Good health and well-being	SDG3	235	38	1562	15.0%	2.4%
Quality education	SDG4	276	67	1420	19.4%	4.7%
Gender equality	SDG5	402	95	2840	14.2%	3.3%
Clean water and sanitation	SDG6	168	32	1562	10.8%	2.0%
Affordable and clean energy	SDG7	309	51	1704	18.1%	3.0%
Decent work and economic growth	SDG8	224	105	994	22.5%	10.6%
Industry, innovation, and infrastructure	SDG9	211	110	994	21.2%	11.1%
Reduced inequalities	SDG10	196	61	1136	17.3%	5.4%
Sustainable cities and communities	SDG11	231	56	1846	12.5%	3.0%
Responsible consumption and production	SDG12	415	87	2130	19.5%	4.1%
Climate change	SDG13	272	31	1846	14.7%	1.7%
Life below water	SDG14	104	13	1136	9.2%	1.1%
Life on land	SDG15	167	15	1988	8.4%	0.8%
Peace, justice, and strong institutions	SDG16	247	63	1420	17.4%	4.4%
Partnerships for the goals	SDG17	173	49	1136	15.2%	4.3%

Note: * The column “Maximum possible keyword count” connotes the hypothetical maximum number of keywords that could be addressed for each SDG. This number was deduced by multiplying the total number of courses assessed in this study (71), with the set number of keywords designated for each specific SDG.

provides an overview of the degree to which SDG topics were integrated into the courses, based on faculty assessments. Each course was reviewed for SDG relevance using a structured keyword list, and faculty members rated the presence of each SDG-related keyword on a three-point scale: not addressed, partially addressed, or deeply addressed. The totals for each level were then calculated as percentages of the overall number of courses evaluated, showing the extent to which each SDG was incorporated at varying levels of depth.

The study program at FEB UM encompasses all SDGs, albeit with varying degrees of depth and coverage. As presented in Table 1, there was a noticeable disparity in the percentage of keywords addressed across the different SDGs. This diverse representation facilitates a holistic assessment of the SDG integration process. The outcomes spotlight both the strengths of the program and areas that might benefit from enhanced focus, thereby aiding in the strategic planning for future curriculum development. This varying degree of SDG coverage underscored the importance of fostering a balanced dialogue regarding the prioritization and emphasis of SDGs within FEB UM’s undergraduate study program.

For a more illustrative understanding, we have also depicted the aggregated values of “% of partially addressed keywords” and “% of deeply addressed keywords” for each SDG in Figure 1.

Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of courses that addressed each SDG at different levels. The darker bars represent the proportion of courses where the SDG-related keywords were partially addressed, while the lighter bars represent courses where the keywords were deeply addressed. This distribution provided an overview of the extent to which each SDG was integrated into the curriculum, highlighting which SDGs were emphasized more extensively.

We next examined the integration of SDG topics within the curriculum, focusing on whether these themes were addressed through core course content or through practical case studies, as shown in

Table 2. Coverage of SDGs in FEB UM’s undergraduate study program courses (scale: 0–2).

	SDGs	The Topic Is Covered Through Course Content	The Topic Is Covered Through Case Studies
No poverty	SDG1	0.41	0.37
Zero hunger	SDG2	0.23	0.24
Good health and well-being	SDG3	0.20	0.20
Quality education	SDG4	0.32	0.26
Gender equality	SDG5	0.24	0.18
Clean water and sanitation	SDG6	0.14	0.16
Affordable and clean energy	SDG7	0.23	0.25
Decent work and economic growth	SDG8	0.47	0.40
Industry, innovation, and infrastructure	SDG9	0.45	0.42
Reduced inequalities	SDG10	0.29	0.27
Sustainable cities and communities	SDG11	0.19	0.18
Responsible consumption and production	SDG12	0.29	0.26
Climate change	SDG13	0.19	0.18
Life below water	SDG14	0.11	0.11
Life on land	SDG15	0.10	0.10
Peace, justice, and strong institutions	SDG16	0.30	0.22
Partnerships for the goals	SDG17	0.26	0.22

and Figure 2. We used the same metric as in the initial analysis, with a scale from 0 to 2, to assess whether SDG topics were integrated through course content or case studies. Each cell in the table displays the average score for all 71 courses. Higher values in the table denote a more significant integration of the corresponding SDG into the curriculum. The column titled “The topic is covered through course content” gauges the depth of SDG integration within the program’s syllabus, focusing on theoretical and core course components, whereas “The topic is covered through case studies” examines the incorporation of the SDGs within practical, real-world examples used in course discussions. This distinction allowed us to assess both foundational coverage and the applied understanding of the SDGs across the curriculum.

The cumulative values for “The topic is covered through course content” and “The topic is covered through case studies” are also visualized in Figure 2.

Moving on, the insights highlighted in Figure 3 are revealing. The faculty’s perceptions of the SDGs, which were assessed through specific statements, demonstrated an enthusiastic readiness to align the course content with the SDGs. The mean scores shown in Figure 3 confirm a robust foundational grasp of sustainability, registering at 3.95, and a commendable understanding of the SDGs, scoring 3.65. Furthermore, the impressive score of 4.25 suggests that the faculty are proactively contemplating the inclusion of SDG perspectives in their teaching courses.

What is particularly heartening is the faculty’s recognition of areas where course content could be enhanced with a richer SDG perspective. The statement, “The subject could be strengthened with SDG content”, garnered an encouraging average score of 3.92. In a similar vein, the 3.90 score, representing the faculty’s eagerness to enrich courses with the SDGs, underscores their dedication to this initiative.

Overall, this mapping activity has done more than just assess the present state, it has provoked an emerging enthusiasm among faculty to embed the SDGs more organically within the curriculum. The introspective nature of the survey has unequivocally ignited an ambition to holistically integrate the SDGs in course dissemination.

The subsequent section will discuss the ramifications of these findings, presenting possible approaches to further amplify the inclusion of the SDGs within these courses and the broader educational framework.

5. Discussion

Our research, which reflects the current trend of sustainability education in academia [35], was augmented by the two-stage appraisal approach employed. This technique provided a novel outlook within the sustainability education field. Similar studies have demonstrated the importance of a combined methodological approach, as seen in the University of Catalonia case study, which used both quantitative data and faculty interviews to provide a comprehensive view of SDG integration. This dual-method approach highlighted varying perspectives among faculty members and the need for institutional support, which parallels findings in our study [12]. Additionally, an understanding of why specific SDGs are more prominent in curricula can aid in aligning educational objectives with wider sustainability targets, leading to practical applications in refining teaching approaches [36]. This research has emphasized the growing importance of sustainability education and offers a methodology that could be advantageous to the academic community. The faculty’s feedback highlighted a promising trend towards incorporating the SDGs into education, indicating potential for addressing global issues in the future [13,37]. The systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes, as proposed by Kioupi and Voulvoulis (2019) [38], highlights the importance of using a participatory approach in aligning curriculum objectives with sustainability competencies. This framework supported our findings by emphasizing the role of collaboration between the faculty and students in developing effective pedagogical strategies for integrating the SDGs into higher education programs. Furthermore, similar studies have underscored the importance of understanding students’ perspectives on the SDGs, which we aim to incorporate in future research. For example, Jones et al. (2023) [39] reported that, while Japanese students value the SDGs, many doubt their attainability by 2030. Incorporating student feedback at FEB UM could provide a more balanced view of how both the faculty and students perceive the practicality of the SDG targets in the curriculum, potentially improving student engagement and the relevance of the course content.

The outcomes of our mapping exercise clearly indicated the integration of SDGs into the undergraduate study program at FEB UM. Given the academic focus of the program on economics and business studies, it was anticipated—and validated by our findings—that SDGs 1 (Eliminating Poverty); 8 (Encouraging Decent Work and Economic Growth); and 9 (Fostering Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) were given paramount consideration. The emphasis on economic- and employment-related themes was consistent with findings from other universities that focus on business and economic education, such as those in the Basque country case study, where a whole-institution approach was used to integrate the SDGs through structured sectorial plans for equality, inclusion, and sustainability [40]. Our focus on SDGs 1, 8, and 9 aligned well with the critical importance of preparing students for sustainable economic growth and decent work in the future labor market. While some might argue that study programs with the primary focus on economics and business might discourage the integration of the SDGs, our study casts doubt on this perception. Interestingly, the inclusion of the SDGs within such curricula signifies the evolving nature of these disciplines, which now acknowledge global sustainability as a pivotal topic. These findings highlight the progressive approach of FEB UM, which embraces global sustainability challenges and integrates them into the core content of its economic and business education. As we examined the distinct outcomes for SDGs 1, 8, and 9, it was apparent that these goals were not only interconnected but also carried significant importance within the study program.

SDG 1 (No Poverty) received a high level of attention in the curriculum, with a significant percentage of deeply addressed keywords (5.2%) and partially addressed keywords (28.3%) (see Table 1). This underscores a strong commitment to addressing poverty-related challenges within the educational framework. In the context of economic and business studies, the integration of SDG 1 is of paramount importance as it equips students with the knowledge and skills needed to address poverty-related issues and to work towards economic well-being for all.

SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) emerged as one of the most effectively integrated goals, with a high percentage of deeply addressed keywords (10.6%) and partially addressed keywords (22.5%). This result signified a strong emphasis on economic- and employment-related themes within the academic courses. Within the context of economic and business studies, the robust integration of SDG 8 indicates a commitment to preparing students for the challenges and opportunities associated with labor markets, sustainable economic growth, and decent work.

SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) also demonstrated strong integration, with 11.1% of keywords deeply addressed and 21.2% partially addressed. This result highlights the importance of fostering innovation and infrastructure development within the curriculum. In the field of economic and business studies, the emphasis on SDG 9 aligns with the growing need for expertise in technological advancements, industrial growth, and infrastructure expansion. It positions students to engage in sustainable development by contributing to the development of innovative solutions and infrastructure projects.

Broader institutional challenges in implementing the SDGs were also evident at FEB UM, echoing the findings of Hansen et al. (2021) [41] at the University of South Florida, where limited resources and fragmented programs posed barriers to cohesive SDG integration. Our study suggested that addressing these institutional barriers through coordinated strategies at FEB UM could significantly enhance the quality and depth of SDG integration, reinforcing the value of a unified approach. Additionally, the program’s broader educational goals and the global pursuit of sustainable development both align with the focus on SDGs 4 (Quality Education), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). This emphasis not only echoes international sustainability goals, but also highlights the critical role of sustainability in higher education, as emphasized by the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative [42]. The findings of our investigation have highlighted the complex interplay between theoretical knowledge and pragmatic sustainability actions. This balance enables students to not only comprehend the significance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but also to envisage their tangible applications in the real world, thereby bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical implementation [43]. Furthermore, integrating the SDGs into the curriculum will provide future leaders with the necessary tools and perspectives to foster a sustainable global future [44].

6. Conclusions

This study revealed a thorough comprehension of the inclusion of the SDGs in the undergraduate study program at FEB UM. All of the SDGs were found to be incorporated, with particular emphasis on SDGs 1, 8, and 9, indicating the program’s fundamental emphasis on economics and business. This alignment further confirmed the importance of global sustainability goals and the responsibility of higher education, as advocated by the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative [1].

The feedback collected from the faculty demonstrated their proactive effort to embed the SDGs in their courses. This momentum, together with the current enthusiasm, could be utilized to strengthen the integration of the SDGs into the curriculum, aligning it with global sustainability objectives. As higher education institutions are considered crucial change agents in the pursuit of a sustainable world, this study has amplified the role that universities play in creating awareness and catalyzing action. By not just focusing on the integration of the SDGs, but also on the quality and depth of their implementation into the curriculum, academic institutions can push the boundaries and serve as role models for others [45]. Additionally, the data gathered from this mapping exercise indicated potential paths for the faculty to further investigate, examining various indicators to attain a detailed comprehension of the curriculum. These indicators could revolve around the complexity, diversity, intensity, and interconnectedness of subjects and the keywords they cover, paving the way for more informed future curriculum strategies.

Future avenues for exploration involve assessing how the integration of the SDGs affects student engagement and developing organized frameworks to facilitate this integration in different disciplines [13]. By fostering interdisciplinary collaborations and providing educators with the required resources, the program can enhance its SDG-related content and pedagogy [28].

Nonetheless, the constraints of this research, including potential biases from self-reported data and the concentration on one particular institution, underscore the imperative for more comprehensive investigations. A more comprehensive view of the integration of the SDGs within higher education environments could be obtained by expanding the scope to incorporate numerous institutions. In light of the aforementioned limitations, cross-institutional collaborations could play an instrumental role in broadening the understanding and sharing of best practices for sustainability education. This approach would allow for the creation of a collective and holistic approach to sustainability education [46].