Empowered Citizens, Informed Consumers and Skilled Workers

2. Fostering behavioural and social change for a sustainable future: a lifelong learning approach

The role of socio-behavioural change in addressing the climate crisis

Achieving a sustainable future for all requires rapid and far-reaching transformations across all sectors and systems (IPCC, 2022[1]). Sector transformation refers to significant changes within a specific area of the economy or society, whereas system transformation refers to broad and integrated changes across multiple interconnected sectors and their interactions within broader social, economic, and ecological contexts.

Some sectors such as energy, industry and agriculture are critical because they are among the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and thus to climate change. Figure 2.1 shows emissions trends by sectors of the economy between 1990 and 2019 and shows that globally, GHG emissions continued to rise across all sectors and subsectors, with the most rapid increases observed in transport and industry. In 2019, the energy sector accounted for 34% of global GHG emissions, industry contributed 24%, agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) were responsible for 22%, transport produced 15% and buildings accounted for 5.6%.

Figure 2.1. Trends in global emissions by sector of the economy

Source: (Dhakal et al., 2022[2]) “Emissions Trends and Drivers”, in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.004.

Sector transformation or transition typically focuses on improving the efficiency and sustainability of practices within a particular sector, through for example adopting new technologies, policies, and practices that reduce GHG emissions and enhance resilience to climate impacts within that sector. Human-induced climate change results, however, from over a century of net GHG emissions stemming from unsustainable patterns of consumption and production (IPCC, 2023[3]), which are not restricted or exclusive to a particular sector.

Beyond changes in particular sectors, economic and social systems in general thus need to transform. System transformation approaches recognise that sectors do not operate in isolation and aim to reconfigure entire networks and relationships to create a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable society. This entails taking a systems-thinking approach where synergies and trade-offs across sectors are considered through a transdisciplinary approach, leveraging the linkages between mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development (von Stechow et al., 2015[4]; Rogelj et al., 2018[5]). Systems thinking supports a dynamic analytical approach to environmental crises by considering the interconnectedness, feedback loops, and dynamic complexity of climate change.

In energy systems, this means, for example, dramatically reducing fossil fuel use, diversifying energy generation with renewables, adopting carbon capture technologies and extensive electrification (IPCC, 2023[3]). In the industry sector, reducing GHG emissions requires improving energy and materials efficiency and establishing circular material flows (Ibid). For the AFOLU sector, adopting sustainable farming practices, improving livestock management, conservation and restoration of forests are critical for reducing sectoral emissions (Ibid). These measures need to be combined with measures that shift development pathways as a whole. This includes broader sectoral policies to induce emissions reductions by all actors along the supply chain such as producers, transporters and retailers, as well as policies that induce lifestyle or consumption changes in end users (Ibid).

Demand-side mitigation strategies that change households’ behavioural choices can reduce global GHG emissions in end-use sectors by 40–80% by 2050 (Creutzig et al., 2021[6]). Even if quantitative estimates of mitigation potential associated with behavioural change vary in the literature, studies broadly converge on the most effective behavioural changes, which can be found primarily in the food, mobility and housing sectors. Ivanova et al. (2020[7]) compare the mitigation potential of various consumption options and find that living car-free, switching to electric vehicles, reducing air travel, adopting a vegan diet, and using renewable electricity, are among the behavioural changes with the highest mitigation potential. For instance, a global transition to plant-based diets has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76% and diet-related GHG emissions by 49% (Gibbs and Cappuccio, 2022[8]).

While behavioural changes are essential in addressing climate change, they cannot replace stringent policies at national, sub-national, and local levels. Policies are crucial because they establish the structural and systemic changes necessary to address the root causes of climate change, e.g. by ending fossil fuel support and providing low-carbon infrastructure, thereby ensuring long-term, scalable impact beyond individual actions. In addition, a dynamic relationship exists between behaviour and policy, where policies shape and regulate behaviour by setting standards and creating incentives or disincentives for sustainable practices, while widespread behavioural changes and advocacy can drive policy development by generating public demand for stronger environmental regulations and accountability. Even when individuals face practical barriers to adopt sustainable behaviours, informed intention to act can still play a crucial role in shaping public discourse and encouraging policymakers to adapt and respond.

Indeed, civic engagement plays a crucial role in fostering societal consensus and lowering obstacles to broader policy action on adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. (Pörtner et al., 2022[9]). Social and civic actions, such as activism, legal action, and policy advocacy, are highly effective in contributing to systems change. While quantifying the impact of social and civic actions on systems change is challenging, studies have shown a robust positive effect of such action through a range of qualitative indicators (Khatibi et al., 2021[10]; Sato M et al., 2023[11]). For example, it has been shown that legal action and climate litigation risk is considered to be a significant financial risk by lenders, regulators, and governments (Sato M et al., 2023[11]).

Education is fundamental in empowering individuals to make informed decisions and act on climate change, be it in their consumption and lifestyle choices or in their civic and political engagement. Indeed, the universal reach of education systems makes formal education a key factor in influencing behaviours, norms and values systems (OECD, 2023[12]; Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]). Elements that are covered in compulsory education can potentially reach all youth at a critical developmental age and lay the foundation for widespread change (Pereira and Freire, 2021[14]; Wynes and Nicholas, 2017[15]). Although young people enrolled in school education have a lower environmental footprint and less decision-making power than adults, education is key to shaping subsequent consumption behaviour and civic engagement, as well as career choices (the latter will be addressed in Chapter 2).

While some effects of education unfold only in the medium‑ and long‑term, other impacts of education can materialise much faster. For example, over the last decade, youth-led initiatives have become increasingly visible around the world (Pereira and Freire, 2021[14]; Han and Ahn, 2020[16]). The surge in climate movements and youth civic engagement on environmental and sustainability issues are identified as one of the five major positive shifts observed in the last decade that contribute to a more climate-safe trajectory (Roeser et al., 2023[17]). Indeed, research indicates that normative change, i.e. change in what is perceived as normal or morally acceptable, can catalyse significant transformations in legislation, policy, and behaviour. Normative change often begins with a normative challenge, where practices once deemed normal are increasingly viewed as morally unacceptable. Analysis shows that social movements, such as youth-led climate initiatives, have created normative challenges that support the need for shifts across societies (Spaiser, Nisbett and Stefan, 2022[18]).

In addition, the multiplying effects of school education are likely to touch families, communities and social networks via peer effects, intergenerational exchange and local collaboration. For example, results from the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) indicate that young people’s pro‑environmental engagement is interrelated with the level of engagement of their parents and peers (OECD, 2022[19]; OECD, 2023[12]). While the influence of parental values on their children is not surprising, there are indications that this influence can run both ways, with shifts in students’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviours also influencing those of their parents (Damerell, Howe and Milner-Gulland, 2013[20]; Lawson et al., 2019[21]).

However, focusing on compulsory schooling is not enough. To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, wide-reaching societal and economic changes are critical this decade and require developing relevant educational offers and opportunities for adults. Adult education takes place in formal vocational education and training (VET) and higher education settings as well as through various non-formal and informal settings. Spreading educational offers and opportunities across different education levels, sectors and settings seems the most effective way to ensuring cross-generational awareness and action.

At the same time, the time pressures for action should not be interpreted as a reason to diminish attention to younger generations. Educating children remains critical as future generations will inherit a world increasingly shaped by climate change. Indeed, a climate change-free world is no longer possible, and they must be prepared not only to continue to reduce emissions but also to navigate its inevitable impacts, which will vary based on the actions taken today. For example, limiting warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century instead of 2°C can significantly reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, improve public health outcomes and give communities and ecosystems more time to adapt. Achieving this goal requires stringent action throughout the century to peak and decline global temperatures (IPCC, 2018[22]). For education, this means that every age group counts and that a holistic lifecycle approach to environmental, sustainability and climate change education is the only way forward.

The remainder of this chapter explores the role that education systems can play in fostering agency for socio-behavioural change at different ages and stages of learning. The focus on behavioural change and civic action should not be understood as passing the responsibility for climate mitigation from governments to individuals and communities. Instead, it is based on the understanding that socio-behavioural change is an essential part of all pathways to net-zero carbon emissions, and one over which education system have considerable leverage.

The intricate interactions between socio-behavioural change, policies and economic activity are highlighted throughout the chapter. This resonates with the 2022 OECD Declaration on Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy, which highlights key role of public governance to take strong and urgent transformative action on climate and sustainable development and the need to build consensus and trust, including through meaningful participatory processes, for delivering internationally-agreed global goals (OECD, 2022[23])

Developing agency for socio-behavioural change: what does it take and where are we now?

Agency is the capacity to set goals, reflect, and take responsible actions to effect change. This concept is rooted in the belief that learners have both the ability and the will to positively influence their own lives and the world around them. Essentially, fostering agency involves empowering individuals to make meaningful decisions and take actions that drive their learning and impact their communities positively. It is about acting rather than being acted upon; shaping rather than being shaped; and making responsible decisions and choices rather than accepting those determined by others (OECD, 2019[24]; OECD, 2022[19]; OECD, 2021[25]).

Recent OECD (2024[26])survey data highlights declining levels of trust among citizens in their governments’ capacity to tackle complex policy issues, such as climate change. In addition, only around 40% of people believe that the government balances the interests of different generations. Yet, OECD (2024[26])also finds that citizens who believe they have a say in government report higher levels of trust in national government (69%) than those who do not feel they have a say (22%). This large gap in trust levels highlights the need to foster citizens’ sense of agency and participation.

Agency is a multi-facetted concept. In psychology, it is typically described in terms of having a high degree of self-efficacy, i.e. a high internal locus of control and a strong belief that one has the power to alter events. In a sociological perspective, agency is also explored in terms of how it is negotiated between individuals and groups (OECD, 2024[27]). While all individuals inherently have agency, not everyone has the same opportunities to exercise this agency. Indeed, agency is reflective not only of individuals’ intentionality, values, preferences and capacity, but also of the constraints of the social and material environment that surrounds them (OECD, 2024[27]). In addition, the sense of agency that individuals experience is likely to be influenced by intersectional factors such as socio-economic background, age, gender and - for children in particular - prevalent parenting style, including the types of toys and games they are exposed to and the level of emancipative values in their families and communities (e.g. whether they are allowed to question dominant narratives) (OECD, 2024[27]).

Education can play a key role in empowering learners to use their agency, equipping them with the foundational knowledge, skills and attitudes that allow them to understand the world around them and see themselves as actors within it (OECD, 2021[25]; OECD, 2019[28]; OECD, 2022[19]). In the specific context of environmental and sustainability challenges, White et al. (2023[29]) describe the essential competencies that underlie what they call “agency in the Anthropocene1, i.e. agency in an era where human activity is significantly altering Earth systems. These include:

• Understanding the impact of human interactions within Earth’s systems;

• Making informed decisions to act, based on evaluation of diverse sources of evidence and application of creative and systems thinking to regenerate and sustain the environment; and

• Demonstrating respect for diverse perspectives, and hope, in seeking solutions to socio-ecological crises.

This definition of agency in the context of socio-environmental crises emphasises not just the ability to act, but the ability to do so based on a solid understanding of Earth systems and their interactions with human activity. This highlights the fact that individuals can only make informed decisions to act if they are sufficiently aware of, know about and understand environmental and sustainability challenges, including their causes and potential solutions. Going further, the definition highlights a range of key competencies that are essential in seeking solutions to socio-ecological crises, which resonate with various definitions of “sustainability competencies” developed across the world (see Box 2.4 later in this chapter).

Building on this broad definition of agency in the context of sustainability challenges, the remainder of this chapter reviews selected international indicators illustrating levels of understanding of socio-ecological challenges among different age groups, and analyses how these interact with learners’ attitudes, consumption behaviour and civic engagement for sustainability.

Awareness, attitudes and action regarding climate change across the lifecycle

This section provides a snapshot of selected international indicators on awareness, attitudes and actions regarding environmental sustainability and climate change among different age groups in OECD and partner countries. Studies and data show that there may exist connections and mismatches between environmental knowledge/awareness, attitudes, and actions. Analysing these three elements, at different stages of individuals’ lives, can offer a comprehensive understanding of the various opportunities and challenges that education and training systems must navigate to effectively support agency across the lifecycle.

Box 2.1. Methodology and data sources

The section draws on a variety of data sources including the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Global Competence Assessment (2018) (OECD, 2022[19]), the European Social Survey (ESS) Round 8 (2016) (ESS, 2016[30]), the International Social Survey Programme (2020) (ISSP, 2020[31]), the OECD’s Survey on Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) (OECD, 2023[32]), and the Earth for all survey 2024, a comprehensive survey conducted in G20 countries examining attitudes to societal transformations, political and economic systems and planetary stewardship (Earth4All, 2024[33]). Part of the analysis in this section was developed in collaboration with the OECD’s INES Network on Labour Market, Economic and Social Outcomes of Learning, more detailed information on underlying data sources and methodologies available in (OECD, 2024[34]).

Data is presented for various age groups and countries based on availability in the original data sources and associated reports. The data does not allow to compare results on awareness, attitudes and actions across different surveys, as the specific indicators and questions asked are similar but not the same. Survey implementation dates also vary, which is likely to have impacted on the exposure that respondents have had to public information, news reporting and activism regarding climate change. In particular, the ESS data (2016) and the OECD’s PISA (2018) data predate significant factors influencing climate change awareness, such as certain prominent youth-led climate protests and the surge in media coverage of climate catastrophes (see Figure 2.11 ). In the absence of more recent data of comparable coverage and quality, they still offer relevant insights.

Awareness and depth of understanding

Awareness of socio-ecological issues pertains to an individual's understanding and perception of environmental conditions and sustainability, including anticipation of future developments. There are indications that young people generally consider themselves familiar with the challenges of climate change when they are approaching the end of compulsory education. In the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018, almost 80% of students aged 15 years old reported knowing about or being very familiar with climate change and global warming on average across OECD countries (OECD, 2022[19]). At the same time, the data also show significant socio-economic variation. As shown in Figure 2.2, on average across OECD countries, the share of students displaying awareness of climate change and global warming among socio-economically advantaged students was 20 percentage points higher (at 88%) than among disadvantaged students (at 68%) (OECD, 2022[19])2.

Figure 2.2. Environmental awareness, by student’s socio-economic status

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported knowing about or being very familiar with climate change and global warming

Source: (OECD, 2024[34]) Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en, based on PISA 2018 data.

Widespread climate change awareness is not surprising given the surge in news coverage on the climate crisis over the last decade (see Figure 2.11 further below). But, in fact, awareness levels tell us little about the depth of knowledge and the understanding individuals have of the intricate relationships between ecological and human factors. Being aware of climate change does not necessarily mean having a solid scientific understanding of its magnitude, causes and potential solutions.

When asked to rate their actual knowledge and competence in explaining climate change and environmental issues, a smaller share of students reported feeling confident about their ability to articulate complex issues related to climate change: on average across the OECD, 63% of 15-year-old students reported that they could explain the impact of carbon-dioxide emissions on the environment easily or with some effort (OECD, 2022[19]).

Beyond self-reported levels of knowledge, the PISA 2018 survey also offers insights into students’ actual proficiency in responding to environmental sustainability test items. The 2018 Global Competence assessment included 5 test units that assessed students’ knowledge and skills related to both “natural resources and environmental risks” and “policies, practices and behaviours for environmental sustainability”, i.e. both the ecological and social aspects of environmental challenges. The assessment was conducted in 26 countries and economies (of which 12 OECD countries). Results show that on average across countries and test units, less than 50% of students were able to answer sustainability items correctly, although there were variations across countries and across test units, as shown in Figure 2.3.

This shows that, among students nearing the end of compulsory education, knowledge about global sustainability issues as assessed in PISA 2018 is still highly variable. In terms of socio-economic status, performance in environmental sustainability was better among socio-economically advantaged than disadvantaged students in each of the 20 environmental sustainability items on average across countries and economies.

In the context of students’ agency, it is of interest to know whether students are acquiring knowledge about potential solutions and competencies to reflect about solutions to complex climate challenges. Among the sustainability questions, the test unit on “rising sea levels” allows analysing students’ understanding regarding potential solutions to a consequence of climate change. The question aimed to identify whether students were able to distinguish between (1) solutions that are long-term and address the root causes of climate change and (2) solutions that are short-term and adapt human environments to climate change. The analysis of responses shows that, on average across countries, 70% of students were able to correctly identify reducing GHG emissions as a long-term response and 60% of students were able to correctly identify building sea defences as a short-term response, indicating that many misunderstood building sea defences as a long-term response to the climate crisis3.

Figure 2.3. Correct answers by students on environmental sustainability items

Average percentage 15-year-old students who correctly answered environmental sustainability items, across test units

Note: Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students who correctly responded the items under the Rising Sea levels unit.

Source: (OECD, 2022[19]) Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges?, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8abe655c-en.

For adults, results from the European Social Survey (ESS) Round 8 (2016) (ESS, 2016[30]) and the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2020 (ISSP, 2020[31]) offer some insights on the extent to which individuals beyond the age of compulsory education understand the causes of climate change. The European Social Survey included a question asking participants to identify the main causes of climate change. In response to this question, on average among the OECD countries participating in the survey, only 46% of 25-64-year-olds correctly identified human activity as the main cause of climate change.

At the same time, it is noteworthy that the share of individuals understanding human-induced climate change is higher on average among younger adults, with 53% of 18-24-year-olds selecting human activity as the main cause (OECD, 2024[34]). The shares are higher for the younger age group in nearly all OECD countries except Czechia, Hungary and Israel. The difference between age groups is most pronounced in Norway where 57% of 18-24-year-olds acknowledge that climate change is caused mainly or entirely by human activity, compared to only 37% of 25-64-year-olds (Table A6.2 in (OECD, 2024[34])). One explanation for the better understanding among younger individuals of the anthropogenic nature of climate change might be that recent graduates may have benefitted from more in-depth coverage of environmental and sustainability content as part of their formal education than older generations, but it is likely that other factors are also at play here, such as a stronger perceived exposure to climate risks and fewer vested interests in maintaining the status quo (Asai, Borgonovi and Wildi, 2022[35]).

The ESS data also allows to compare these responses by educational attainment levels for the 25-64 age group. A clear pattern emerges, where higher levels of education correlate with increased awareness of human-induced climate change in almost all countries (Figure 2.4). An average of only 38% of individuals with below upper secondary education indicated understanding that climate change is mainly or entirely caused by human activity, compared to 45% with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and 54% with tertiary education. For three non-European OECD countries - Korea, New Zealand and the United States - similar information is available from the International Social Survey Programme 2020. The emerging pattern from this data is less clear, but still evident in two of the three countries (Figure 2.4).

These low shares of individuals reporting understanding of the human-induced nature of climate change are concerning overall, and particularly so for older generations and those not pursuing higher levels of education. This raises questions about how education systems can ensure that all individuals, including those not pursuing post-secondary and tertiary education, have access to relevant information and lifelong learning opportunities (this will be explored in the Section on The role of socio-behavioural change in addressing the climate crisis).

Figure 2.4. Understanding of the causes of climate change, by educational attainment

Percentage of adults selecting ‘human activity’ as the main cause of climate change, by educational attainment (25-64-year-olds)

Note: For ESS, the graph shows the proportion of adults who answered the question "Do you think that climate change is caused by natural processes, human activity, or both?" by selecting "mainly by human activity" or "entirely by human activity." For ISSP (Korea, New Zealand and United States), the graph shows the proportion of adults who answered the question “Which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion?” by selecting the statement "The world’s climate has been changing mostly due to human activity". For more information see Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en).

Source: (OECD, 2024[34]) Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

There are also indications of widespread misconceptions in the adult population about the impact of different behavioural responses on climate change. In a 2021 international survey of over 21 000 individuals in 30 jurisdictions, the majority of respondents were unable to distinguish high-impact actions from low-impact actions (Ipsos, 2021[36]). For example, 59% of those surveyed believed recycling was among the best ways to reduce their carbon footprint while it was in fact one of the lowest-impact actions proposed in the survey. On average, participants almost consistently ranked low-impact actions such as switching to low-energy lightbulbs as more effective ways to reduce emissions than high-impact actions such as reducing air travel or shifting to a plant‑based diet.

Attitudes and action

Attitudes towards environmental and sustainability issues encompass the emotions and beliefs moderated by an individual's value system, shaping their stance on socio-ecological matters and how, when and by whom they should be addressed. Action in response to environmental issues means the outward expression of an individual's attitudes through their behaviours in addressing environmental challenges.

For 15-year-olds, data from PISA 2018 data indicates that pro-environmental attitudes are widespread, with on average nearly 80% of students reporting that caring for the environment is important to them. In some countries, this share rises to 90% of students. No country or economy had less than two-thirds of its student population reporting that caring for the environment was important to them (OECD, 2022[19]). Again, however, socio-economic gaps can be observed, with more advantaged students reporting more pro-environmental attitudes.

Limited information is available on the extent to which these widespread pro-environmental attitudes translate into pro-environmental consumption and lifestyle choices among youth. The PISA 2018 survey asked students about the extent to which they engaged in the following two consumer behaviours: reducing energy use at home and choosing certain products for ethical or environmental reasons even if they are more expensive, with respectively 67% and 44% of students reporting that they did this (Figure 2.5).

Compared to saving energy at home, choosing more expensive products for ethical or environmental reasons may be less popular because it requires more financial resources as well as time and effort in terms of seeking out relevant information on products. As can be expected, a greater socio-economic gap is also observed for choosing more expensive products than for saving energy, with advantaged students being 11 percentage points more likely engage sustainable consumption choices than disadvantaged students (compared to a 6-percentage points difference for saving energy at home). No information is available from PISA 2018 on the degree to which students engage in the lifestyle and daily behavioural choices that are most impactful in terms of reducing individual greenhouse gas emissions, such as changing diets, modes of transportation and consumption levels (see Section on The role of socio-behavioural change in addressing the climate crisis).

Regarding civic action and engagement, PISA 2018 does not offer any specific information on the degree to which students organise or engage in high-visibility action such as strikes, protests and litigation4. But it provides some insights into other forms of student activism, namely whether they participate in activities in favour of environmental protection, boycott products or companies for political, ethical or environmental reasons or sign environmental or social petitions online (Figure 2.5). On average across participating countries/economies, some 44% of students report participating in environmental protection activities, and only a bit over a quarter of students report signing petitions online or boycotting products respectively (OECD, 2022[19]).

The very low percentages of students engaging with petitions or boycotts may reflect that these types of actions are not widely perceived by students as effective in addressing environmental challenges. OECD (2022[19]) also highlights that there are cultural differences regarding the social acceptability of these types of actions. However, the surprisingly low percentage of students reporting that they engage in the seemingly catch-all category of “environmental protection activities” likely reflects the existence of other barriers, such as perceived cost, effort, time commitment or public exposure. It is striking that even among the students who are “environmentally enthusiastic”5, almost 50% convey that they do not engage in any activities to protect the environment (OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables B.4.32 and B.4.38).

Figure 2.5. Self-reported student involvement in specific environmental actions

Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported that they were involved in environmental actions

Source: (OECD, 2022[19]) Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges?, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8abe655c-en, https://stat.link/cqxuhm

Data from the OECD’s Survey of Social and Emotional Skills (SSES) Round 1 (2019)6 offers some interesting nuance to these findings on students’ environmental action, as the data allow to compare student reports on their environmental action for two different age groups: 10-year-olds and 15-year-olds (Figure 2.6). SSES asked students whether they participated in environmental protection activities outside of school, offering a list of examples, namely recycling, planting a garden/trees and cleaning up trash from an area. While this type of activities have little impact on emissions compared to high-impact behavioural change or collective action and advocacy (see Section on The role of socio-behavioural change in addressing the climate crisis), they may reflect pro-environmental attitudes and dispositions also underlying more impactful action. In all the participating cities, considerably higher shares of 10-year-olds reported participating in environmental protection outside school than 15-year-olds. On average across the participating cities, 50% of 10-year-olds reported that they participated in such activities, compared to only 24% of 15-year-olds (OECD, 2019[37]) .

Figure 2.6. Percentage of 10- and 15-year-old students who participated in environmental protection activities outside of school

Activities included e.g. recycling, planting a garden/trees, cleaning up trash from an area

Source: (OECD, 2019[37]) SSES Round 1 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/SSES-Round-1-Database.html (accessed on 6 December 2024).

These findings are consistent with various academic studies reporting that interest in and concern for the environment evolve with age, with levels of connectedness to nature and willingness to act typically declining from childhood to adolescence, and then rising again in young adults (Pereira and Freire, 2021[14]; Chawla, 2022[38]; Price et al., 2022[39]). This adolescent dip in pro-environmental attitudes and actions points to the need to tailor strategies carefully to the needs and interests of different age groups, in particular the importance of offering environmental and sustainability education for secondary school students at adequate levels of complexity (Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]) (see also Section on Conclusions and policy options).

For adults, data from the Earth for all survey 2024 (Earth4All, 2024[33]) offers information on societal attitudes to global action on climate change in G20 countries. The results show that on average across G20 countries, 71% of surveyed adults believe that the world must take immediate action within the next decade to reduce emissions from electricity, transport, food, industry, and buildings (Figure 2.7). This indicates that addressing the climate crisis urgently within the current decade is important to a clear majority of adults across G20 countries. This contrasts with the considerably lower levels of understanding regarding the causes of climate change shown in Figure 2.4 for European countries. This difference could indicate a shift in understanding over time, as the ESS data is from 2016, while the data in Figure 2.7 is from 2024. Alternatively, it may reflect higher awareness levels when countries outside of Europe are included in the analysis.

Other factors also influence the degree to which individuals prioritise environmental concerns. Based on analyses of various data sources, Asai et al. (2022[35]) find that people’s economic vulnerability and the sectors they work in influence their attitudes towards their environment and support for public policy. For example, individuals who work in the most CO₂-emitting sectors tend to be less worried about climate change than those working in the least CO₂-emitting sectors. Asai et al. (2022[35]) also find that exposure to natural disasters influences environmental attitudes, with individuals being more willing to prioritise the environment when they perceive higher risk of being affected by climate disasters.

Figure 2.7. Attitudes towards global action on climate change

Proportion of adults (18-75 years old) expressing how quickly they think the world should take major action to reduce emissions

Note: Proportion of adults (18-75 years old) answering the question: "Thinking about climate change and protecting nature, how quickly do you think the world needs to take major action to reduce carbon emissions from electricity, transport, food, industry, and buildings?"

Ipsos surveyed 22,000 participants aged 18 to 55-75 in total across 22 countries (1,000 per country). This included 18 G20 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States), plus four counties outside the G20 (Austria, Denmark, Kenya and Sweden). Not all questions were asked in China. All interviews were conducted online and took place between 5th March and 8th April

1.

Source: (Earth4All, 2024[33]) The Earth for All 2024 Survey: Exploring global attitudes to political and economic transformation, https://earth4all.life/global-survey-2024/. (accessed on 6 December 2024).

While there is widespread agreement among adults in G20 countries that “the world” should take action, other data indicate that the degree to which individuals feel a personal responsibility for taking action is more varied. Data from the ESS Round 8 (2016), and from the ISSP (2020) in the case of the United States, indicate that adults from participating nations display varying levels of personal responsibility to contribute to mitigating climate change. On a scale between 0 (indicating no sense of responsibility) and 10 (indicating the strongest sense of responsibility), adults in France and Switzerland reported the highest scores, while those in Czechia, Estonia and Hungary report the lowest (Figure 2.8). On average across all countries surveyed, the score for 25–64-year-olds across OECD countries is 5.9 (Ibid).

Individuals with tertiary education degrees are more likely than those with lower levels of educational attainment to report a strong sense of personal responsibility for contributing to mitigation efforts (OECD, 2024[34]). However, the difference in responsibility across different educational attainment levels seems less striking than the difference observed in environmental awareness (Figure 2.4), with less than a 2-point gap between individuals with below upper secondary education and those with tertiary education on a scale from 1 to 10 (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8. Self-reported scores on adults’ sense of personal responsibility towards reducing climate change, by educational attainment

Average scores on a scale from 0 to 10, 25-to-64-year-olds

Note: Scores range from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating a complete lack of responsibility towards reducing climate change.

1. Year of reference differs from 2016. Survey question also differs from that used in ESS.

Countries are ranked in descending order of the mean score among adults with below upper secondary educational attainment.

See Table A6.3 (OECD, 2024[34]) for data and for more information see Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en).

Source: (OECD, 2024[34]) Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

These findings are corroborated by results from the OECD Survey on Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) 2022 (Box 2.2), which also finds that the share of individuals who consider climate change or other environmental issues to be personally important is higher among those with tertiary educational attainment than those with lower attainment levels (OECD, 2024[34]). In addition, the EPIC Survey offers in-depth insights into household behaviours related to energy use, transportation, waste management, and food consumption (Box 2.2), and the dataset allows disaggregating the responses by educational attainment, which is done for selected indicators below (OECD, 2023[32]).

Box 2.2. Analysis of the OECD Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) survey 2022 household data

The EPIC Survey examines the factors influencing household decisions and the potential effects of policies on these decisions. Conducted in 2022, the survey was carried out in nine countries: Belgium, Canada, France, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It gathers data on attitudes and behaviours related to energy use, transportation, waste management, and food consumption. Additionally, it includes information on the socio-economic characteristics of respondents, including on their educational attainment levels and households. This comprehensive dataset, encompassing over 17,000 respondents, offers unique insights into attitudes towards the environment, current actions and barriers to adopting more sustainable practices, several of which are highlighted below:

• Energy: The adoption of renewable energy and low-emission technologies remains limited, even when these options are accessible. Among households with the capability to install such equipment, less than one-third have installed heat pumps (30%), solar panels (29%), or battery storage (27%). Uptake is especially low for technologies that involve high initial installation costs or are not well understood.

• Transport: there is a significant dependence on private cars in both rural and urban areas, indicating that electrifying the transport system could be a crucial strategy for reducing emissions in this sector. However, over half (54%) of respondents that regularly use a car report that enhanced public transportation—such as more affordable, frequent, and widespread services—would motivate them to reduce their car usage.

• Food consumption: Affordability (64%), taste (61%), freshness (60%), and nutritional value (54%) are the primary considerations for respondents when purchasing food. The environmental impact of food products is less of a priority, even for those who express environmental concerns.

• Waste practices: Households take steps to reduce waste through low-effort activities like using reusable shopping bags (83%), but struggle to change consumption habits more fundamentally, with fewer buying second-hand items (37%) or renting instead of buying (20%). Those with recycling services produce 26% to 42% less non-recyclable waste, and those charged for waste disposal compost 55% of their food waste compared to 35% among those not charged.

Source: (OECD, 2023[32]) How Green is Household Behaviour?: Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behaviour, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.

Figure 2.9 depicts the proportion of adults expressing their willingness to reduce car use if public transport systems were improved, by educational attainment. The figure shows that across all surveyed countries, individuals with tertiary education consistently report a higher willingness to switch to public transport compared to those with non-tertiary education, suggesting that higher education levels are associated with a tendency to prioritise environmental and climate considerations over other considerations such as (perceived or actual) comfort and safety.

Figure 2.9. Willingness to reduce car use

Percentage of adults (25-54 years old) expressing a willingness to reduce car use with improved public transport services, by educational attainment

Note: Proportion of adults (25-54 years old) who responded positively to the questions “Would better public transport services (e.g. more frequent, more accessible, etc.) lead you to use a car less?”

Source: Based on data from the 2022 OECD Survey on Environmental Policy and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) in (OECD, 2023[32]) How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behaviour, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.

Figure 2.10 offers additional insights on the criteria that adults consider when purchasing food. As reported in Box 2.2, overall, consumers consider the environmental impact of food products less important than other criteria such as affordability (64%), taste (61%), freshness (60%), and nutritional value (54%). However, when looking at the minority of respondents who did respond that environmental concerns were a priority when purchasing food, an interesting pattern emerges regarding the specific environmental concerns that they consider. On average across countries, the relatively abstract consideration of reducing emissions that contribute to climate change is considered least important, compared with more tangible considerations such as organic and local production, animal welfare and minimal packaging.

Figure 2.10 also shows that individuals who consider the environmental impacts of food production are predominantly those with tertiary education. While this pattern might indicate an important role played by tertiary education in shaping consumer choices, it is important to note that some of these environmentally-conscious choices (e.g. the choice for organic and locally-produced food) are also often linked to purchasing power. People with higher incomes, who more frequently have higher educational attainment, can afford to make choices that are less driven by cost. Indeed, EPIC finds that, among all factors considered when purchasing food, respondents with higher incomes are more likely to prioritise environmental considerations compared to those with lower incomes (OECD, 2023[32]). This interplay between education and socio-economic status must also be considered when examining consumer behaviour towards more sustainable practices.

Figure 2.10. Priorities when making food purchases by educational attainment

Percentage of respondents prioritising various environmental considerations by educational attainment, adults (25-54 years old)

Note: Survey participants were presented with the following question: “What is most important to you when you are choosing which foods to buy? Please select up to five of the following: It is easy to prepare; It tastes good, It is healthy; It emits relatively few emissions that contribute to climate change; It is affordable; It can be easily bought or is widely accessible; It is made and sold by people who have good working conditions; It is produced in a way that respects animal welfare; It is organic; It is unprocessed; It is produced locally; It is sold with minimal packaging; It is not easily perishable; It is fresh.” For respondents in each educational attainment category, the figure shows the percentage indicating that they prioritise attributes that could be perceived as environmentally relevant (namely: Low emissions, Organic, Produced in a way that respects animal welfare, Produced locally and Sold with minimal packaging). While concern for animal welfare is not a direct environmental concern, it is often aligned with sustainable farming and production methods, which benefit the environment. Humane practices reduce pollution, enhance biodiversity, improve soil health, and reduce resource consumption and GHG emissions, supporting broader environmental goals and contributing to overall sustainability.

Source: Based on data from the 2022 OECD Survey on Environmental Policy and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) in (OECD, 2023[32]), How Green is Household Behaviour?: Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behaviour, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.

When it comes to indicators of civic and public engagement of the general population, there has been a notable shift in societal attitudes and behaviours towards climate change, reflecting a growing awareness and engagement with environmental issues. This shift is evidenced by the increasing visibility of climate concerns in public discourse, the rise of grassroots movements, and a broader acceptance of sustainable practices across various sectors of society.

In recent years, climate change has become a central issue in political discourse and public debate, fostering the potential for the adoption of more ambitious policies and the removal of existing barriers. The growing coverage in newspapers and on television reflects the increasing public dissemination of information about climate change, making it accessible to a broader audience. As shown in Figure 2.11, media coverage of climate change has steadily increased since 2015, with fluctuations often tied to significant events or geopolitical developments (Roeser et al., 2023[17]; Aoyagi et al., 2024[40]) This trend highlights how climate change has progressively entered the mainstream, particularly following the adoption of the Paris Agreement, which has contributed to a heightened global awareness of the issue.

Figure 2.11. Media coverage of climate change or global warming

Note: Different peaks correspond to different events as for example the all-time high 2010 peak following UNCCC COP in Copenhagen.

Source: (Aoyagi et al., 2024[40]), World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming, 2004-2024, https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/world/index.html (accessed on 5 December 2024).

There has been a global rise in significant climate movements, such as the notable Fridays for Future, driven by increasing youth engagement with environmental issues. For example, in 2019, environment-related protests in the United States more than doubled compared to 2018, with a 404% increase in March and an extraordinary 845% surge during the global climate strike in September (Brannen, Haig and Schmidt, 2020[41]).While climate protests have predominantly occurred in Europe and the United States, they are not limited to these countries, and Fridays for Future has reported demonstrations in 177 countries across all continents.

Climate protests between 2016 and 2021 have been shown to lead to an increase in media coverage of the issue (Lochner, Stechemesser and Wenz, 2024[42]) and to an increase in concern among the general population (Brehm and Gruhl, 2024[43]). In Germany, Valentim (2023[44]) shows that exposure to Friday for Futures protests boosts the Green Party's vote share, with repeated exposure to these demonstrations amplifying the effect further. In Switzerland, the Fridays for Future (FFF) movement has been widely perceived positively by the Swiss public, with nearly one-third of participants in a survey reporting increased environmental awareness and behaviour changes, particularly in private behaviours such as mobility and consumption (Fritz et al., 2023[45]). In addition, in the United States context, it has been demonstrated that peaceful marches increase support for the climate movement among independents and Democrats (Khatibi et al., 2021[10]). Civil disobedience positively affects only Democrats, with no observed effects among Republicans and no "backfire" effects for any group, highlighting the effectiveness of tactical diversity and the interaction between partisanship and protest in shaping movement support (Ibid).

Alongside the rise of the climate movement, there has been a surge of so-called “anti-climate” protests. Figure 2.12 shows aggregate attendance at climate-related protests worldwide since 2022, capturing the post-COVID recovery in civic mobilization. The figure reveals that larger anti-climate protests particularly gained momentum in the third quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2024 – the only periods where attendance at anti-climate protests exceeded that of pro-climate movements, with over 70,000 participants during these times. Despite receiving considerable media attention, these surges remain significantly lower than the pro-climate protests, which amassed over one million participants in the first and third quarters of 2023.

Figure 2.12. Attendance to protests relating to climate policy around the world since 2022

Aggregate participation (in number of participants) in climate-related protests around the world

Note: The figure aggregates pro- and anti-climate protests since 2022, reflecting the post-COVID recovery period in civic mobilization, using attendance data from Carnegie’s Climate Protest Tracker. Protests range from demands for stronger climate action to opposition against existing policies, with outcomes such as policy shifts or corporate commitments. The data relies on peak protest attendance estimates, which can vary as local authorities often underestimate crowd sizes, while organizers may overestimate them, and presents therefore best estimates. The tracker focuses on mass climate-related protests, excluding many smaller-scale mobilizations that may not have gained significant attention, especially in non-English media. As a result, the figure reflects major episodes of climate activism, primarily reported in English, with additional data from French and Mandarin sources, capturing key post-pandemic trends in global climate activism.

Source: Adapted from (Carnegie, n.d.[46]) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Climate Protest Tracker, https://carnegieendowment.org/features/climate-protest-tracker?lang=en (accessed on 5 December 2024).

Anti-climate movements are diverse, encompassing a degree of climate scepticism but also often driven by other concerns, such as opposition to policies perceived as unjust or poorly implemented. The Mouvement des Gilets jaunes [Yellow Vest movement] in France, for example, was not explicitly anti-climate but protested against a proposed carbon tax that was seen as disproportionately burdening lower-income groups (Mehleb, Kallis and Zografos, 2021[47]). This illustrates that much of the resistance in that movement was not against climate action itself but rather the way these policies were implemented. Recent analysis of the current surge anti-climate movement in Europe also emphasises that opposition emerges when policies are viewed as unfair or lacking transparency (Youngs, 2024[48]). This suggests that although the climate backlash may intuitively be seen as a counter-movement or a regression in response to the rise of pro-climate activism, it is, in fact, more complex. The politics surrounding the green transition have become a central issue within democratic processes, reflecting not necessarily a weakening of the climate movement, but rather an increasing complexity in addressing societal concerns regarding the equity and implementation of climate policies. This complexity deserves careful attention to avoid deepening polarisation and to ensure the green transition is both inclusive and just.

Emerging agency and equity concerns

The analysis in the previous section reveals various connections between awareness, attitudes and actions with respect to environmental, sustainability and climate challenges. However, there are some inconsistencies in these relationships: while a large majority of individuals report high levels of awareness and concern, a smaller proportion feels personal responsibility for contributing to climate change mitigation, and an even smaller share actually engages in pro-environmental actions.

The analysis also shows that awareness, attitudes and actions are influenced by educational attainment and socio-economic backgrounds, which are often interrelated, as individuals from more privileged backgrounds more frequently complete higher levels of education. In addition, the lifecycle perspective revealed interesting age differences, with younger (10-year-old) students more engaged in pro-environmental activities than older (15-year-old) students, and younger adults more knowledgeable/informed about climate change than older adults.

These findings suggest several potential obstacles to widespread socio-behavioural change. First, there may be a lack of effective educational strategies that bridge the gap between awareness and attitudes on the one hand, and action on the other. Awareness and attitudes alone are insufficient if individuals do not have full understanding of the main causes, processes and potential solutions with respect to climate change and sustainability challenges. A lack of hope and a sense of futility may further reduce motivation for change and contribute to inaction.

Second, socio-economic factors can impede the ability to act; individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds may lack the resources or opportunities to engage in pro-environmental behaviours despite their awareness and/or pro-environmental attitudes. In addition, social and cultural factors might also play a role, where societal norms and peer influences either support or hinder pro-environmental actions. This is of particular concern considering that more privileged groups generally have larger carbon footprints than less privileged groups (Box 2.3).

This highlights the complexity of translating environmental awareness into action, underscoring the need for targeted educational and policy interventions. Several fundamental questions arise:

• While awareness of environmental and climate challenges is high across OECD and partner countries, understanding of their causes, consequences and potential solutions is much more variable. How can education ensure that all learners leave compulsory education with adequate understanding of existential socio-ecological risks?

• Even among individuals with strong knowledge outcomes and pro-environmental attitudes, translating these into action faces obstacles. How can education help bridge the gap between caring about sustainability and climate issues and the actual engagement in action?

• Higher levels of education consistently correlate with greater pro-environmental attitudes, potentially removing obstacles to action. Given that collective action and policy acceptance require broad engagement, how can the education sector enhance engagement among the groups who do not pursue post-compulsory education?

• While self-reported environmental awareness, attitudes and actions are higher among socio-economically advantaged groups, more advantaged groups typically have higher carbon footprints than less advantaged groups (see Box 2.3), a fact that is frequently overlooked. How can education highlight this disparity and promote more sustainable practices among all socio-economic groups? How can the education sector ensure a more effective and inclusive approach to environmental action?

The remainder of this chapter proposes a range of policy options to address these questions and provides key leverage points that education systems can focus on to support societies at large in overcoming some of the obstacles they currently face in tackling the climate and other environmental crises.

Box 2.3. Carbon inequality

A stark relationship between wealth and carbon emissions exists, showing that more advantaged groups typically have significantly higher carbon footprints (OXFAM, 2020[49]; Chancel et al., 2022[50]). OXFAM, (2020[49]) presents data highlighting the vast inequality in carbon emissions, with the wealthiest segments of the population disproportionately consuming the world's limited carbon budget. For example, between 1990 and 2015, the wealthiest 10% of the global population, approximately 630 million people, are responsible for a staggering 52% of cumulative carbon emissions, effectively consuming nearly a third (31%) of the global carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C. Within this group, the richest 1% alone—around 63 million individuals—accounted for over 15% of cumulative emissions, using 9% of the carbon budget, which is more than twice the emissions of the poorest 50% of humanity. Meanwhile, the global middle class, comprising 40% of humanity (around 2.5 billion people), contributed 41% of cumulative emissions, using 25% of the carbon budget, while the poorest 50% accounted for just 7% of emissions, depleting a mere 4% of the budget. These disparities are driven primarily by consumption patterns, which include frequent air travel, ownership of large homes and household behaviour, and extensive use of private vehicles.

Chancel et al. (2022[50]) look into the implications of inequalities in the distribution of economic assets, on global ecological inequalities. The study finds that carbon inequalities between regions are large and persistent. For example, in 2019, per capita emissions in Sub-Saharan Africa are 1.6 tonnes per person per year, just a quarter of the global average, while North America has much higher emissions at 21 tonnes per capita, three times the world average. Other regions vary, with South and South-East Asia at 2.6 tonnes per capita and Latin America at 4.8 tonnes, followed by Middle East and North Africa, East Asia, Europe, and Russia and Central Asia, where emissions range between 7.5 and 10 tonnes per capita. Strikingly, carbon inequalities within regions are more pronounced than those between regions, with significant disparities in carbon footprints observed across different income groups in every region. For example, in East Asia, the top 10% emit nearly 40 tonnes of carbon annually compared to around three tonnes by the poorest 50%, while in North America, the top 10% emit over 70 tonnes, and the bottom 50% emit fewer than 10 tonnes.

Given these disparities, it is crucial that education systems address the disconnect between environmental awareness and actual carbon footprints by promoting not only awareness but also actionable, equitable strategies for reducing emissions across all socio-economic groups, with a particular focus on reducing the disproportionately high carbon consumption.

Source: (OXFAM, 2020[49]) Confronting Carbon Inequality - Putting climate justice at the heart of the COVID-19 recovery, https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2024); (Chancel et al., 2022[50]), World Inequality Report 2022, World Inequality Lab, https://wir2022.wid.world/ (accessed on 9 December 2024).

Conclusions and policy options

Identifying the “sustainability competencies” underlying socio-behavioural change

There is wide agreement that empowering individuals to exercise their agency in the 21^st century requires attention to developing a set of transversal competencies that are essential to function in today’s fast-changing societies, fractured by multiple global crises. Definition of these key competencies, sometimes called “21^st century competencies” vary across countries and contexts, but they typically include strong literacy and numeracy skills; media, information and digital literacy, critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and a growth mindset (OECD, 2019[28]) (OECD, 2021[25]).

In the context of climate change and the green transition, a set of additional competencies and values have been added to the list of key competencies by researchers, and increasingly in curriculum frameworks, aiming to capture ways of being and thinking in the world that may best allow individuals to address sustainability challenges (see Box 2.4 below for some international examples).

While definitions and frameworks vary, there is broad consensus that agency in the context of sustainability challenges builds on transversal scientific thinking and systems thinking skills, but encompasses a broader range of cognitive, affective, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions. In particular, the complexity of socio-ecological challenges requires attention to the social dimensions of human agency, such as the importance of collaboration with others and respect for diverse perspectives in developing responses to socio-ecological crises. Some key dimensions of agency in the context of socio-ecological challenges are addressed in more detail in the following sub-sections.

Box 2.4. International frameworks articulating sustainability competencies

UNESCO’s sustainability competencies were developed in the context of its work on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). UNESCO developed a guide in 2017 (last updated in 2023) that identifies learning objectives, activities and topics for each of the Sustainable Development Goals. Beyond listing specialised competencies for each of the individual SDGs, the guide describes general key competencies for sustainability. These comprise the following: systems-thinking competency; anticipatory competency; normative competency; strategic competency; collaboration competency; critical thinking competency; self-awareness competency; and integrated problem-solving competence.

The European Commission’s GreenComp Framework defines four competency areas and 12 competences for sustainability, applicable to all learners in any setting and age group (Bianchi, Pisiotis and Cabrera Giraldez, 2022[51]). These competencies aim to enable learners to understand and address sustainability challenges in a holistic and transformative way. The four competence areas are:

• embodying sustainability values, which includes valuing sustainability, supporting fairness and promoting nature

• embracing complexity in sustainability, which includes systems thinking, critical thinking and problem framing

• envisioning sustainable futures, which includes futures literacy, adaptability and exploratory thinking

• acting for sustainability, which includes political agency, collective action and individual initiative

The Environmental Sustainability Competence Toolbox is a framework proposed by the OECD and the European Commission, which extends the GreenComp framework to include additional competence areas that are relevant for sustainability and have been defined and assessed as part of the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The additional competences are presented as crucial for equipping students with a wide range of cognitive, affective and behavioural capabilities that should allow them to play a positive role in shaping the future of the environment. The four areas are the following:

• environmental awareness: students have a baseline of science proficiency and report knowledge of or familiarity with environmental issues and climate change,

• sense-of-purpose: students agree or strongly agree that looking after the environment is important to them,

• science self-efficacy: students report that they can complete tasks with regard to climate change “easily” or “with a bit of effort”,

• environmental behaviour: students engage in energy saving or in collective action to protect the environment.

Source: (Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]) “Rethinking Education in the Context of Climate Change: Leverage Points for Transformative Change”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 307, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f14c8a81-en.

Building foundational scientific literacy among all learners

As highlighted above, having a solid understanding of the climate challenge is crucial for individuals to make informed decisions to act. Knowing about the basic causes, processes and potential responses to climate change enables individuals to evaluate, critique and transform new information, thereby enhancing their ability to act autonomously and effectively within their contexts. Results from both PISA 2015 and PISA 2018 show that there is a strong correlation between students’ performance on the environmental sustainability items and students’ performance on the overall PISA science test. The association between performance in environmental sustainability and performance in the general science test is also observed at the system level: countries/economies where the mean score in science is higher tend to perform better on the environmental sustainability test units (OECD, 2022[19]).

While not allowing to infer causality, these findings indicate that the knowledge, concepts and ways of thinking that students acquire when building their general scientific literacy are also highly relevant for building specific environmental science literacy. Boosting overall science education is therefore likely to be an effective way to build some of the scientific literacy competences needed to understand, analyse and respond effectively to environmental and sustainability questions. Further analysis of PISA 2018 data also shows that higher science performance is strongly associated with awareness of climate change, self-efficacy with respect to climate change knowledge, as well as pro-environmental attitudes (OECD, 2022[19]; OECD, 2023[52]).

At the same time, further analyses have shown that, while important, scientific literacy does not automatically lead to learners to adopt sustainable behaviours, take pro-environmental actions or choose sustainable careers. Other factors, in particular values, worldviews and social contexts are important parts of the decision making in proposing responses to climate challenges and will be addressed below (OECD, 2023[12]; OECD, 2022[19]).

The process of acquiring adequate understanding of socio-ecological challenges should not be misunderstood as a passive process of accumulating knowledge, but as one of acquiring a level of scientific literacy that learners can apply in all subjects as an active and dynamic resource that underpins the exercise of agency in various domains. Foundational scientific knowledge and skills, such as the ability to evaluate different sources of evidence and the understanding that scientific knowledge is conditional and constantly evolving, are essential for individuals to exercise agency effectively. Without these foundational scientific thinking skills, individuals may struggle to overcome obstacles, make strategic choices, and achieve their goals due to a lack of necessary understanding. Box 2.5 provides an example of a project-based initiative aimed at promoting scientific and critical thinking in secondary schools, presenting early results that point to the initiative's effectiveness in fostering these skills among students.

Box 2.5. Scientific thinking for all: A toolkit

Scientists have long developed and refined techniques to mitigate bias and prevent cognitive traps, yet these valuable methods are rarely comprehensively taught in secondary education. To bridge this gap, Nobel Prize laureate Saul Perlmutter, researchers at the University of California Berkeley, and Nobel Prize Outreach have initiated the development of a curriculum titled Scientific Thinking for All: A Toolkit. This curriculum aims to equip students with the cognitive tools necessary to navigate complex real-world issues, fostering not only scientific reasoning but also collaborative problem-solving and critical thinking skills across diverse perspectives (Nobel Prize Outreach, 2024[53]).

The full curriculum, set to be completed by 2025, will consist of six units that address 20 fundamental concepts, ranging from causal reasoning to probabilistic thinking and human cognition. The project-based, hands-on approach encourages students to engage with real-world problems, such as decisions around clean water access or transitioning to clean energy. Unit 1, focusing on the iterative nature of scientific evidence through the lens of water quality, and Unit 6, focusing on group decision-making strategies through the lens of energy decisions, are already available (Nobel Prize Outreach, 2024[53]), with pilot phases for other units underway. Designed for continuous improvement, the curriculum leverages iterative feedback from educators, who have reported high levels of student engagement due to the relevance and inquiry-based nature of the content.

Preliminary results from pilot testing indicate substantial improvements in critical thinking skills. Students showed notable progress in understanding science as a dynamic and evolving process, enhanced their ability to reason through uncertainty, and became better at differentiating between facts and values, all after engaging with just one unit of the curriculum. The programme is designed to further strengthen these abilities by revisiting core concepts through various approaches and applications. Beyond equipping students with critical thinking tools, the curriculum seeks to foster a shared understanding of reality, empowering diverse groups to collaboratively solve complex problems—an essential skill for tackling 21st century challenges.

Note: Students demonstrated enhanced abilities in recognising science as a dynamic process (d = .68), reasoning about uncertainty (d = .36), and distinguishing between facts and values (d = .50). d refers to Cohen's d, which is a measure of effect size used in statistics.

Source: Contribution provided by Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, unpublished results. (Nobel Prize Outreach, 2024[53])

Supporting systems thinking as an essential tool to deal with complexity

Among the competencies that are essential to solving sustainability challenges, systems thinking has recently gained attention as a key higher-order cognitive skill that gives individuals the disposition to understand the complex nature of climate change and to address this complexity when thinking about solutions. Systems thinking can be defined as the ability to understand complex interrelationships, interconnections and feedback loops among the components of a given system (Ben‐Zvi‐Assaraf and Orion, 2010[54]; Orgill, York and MacKellar, 2019[55]; Voulvoulis et al., 2022[56]).

Systems thinking is based on the understanding that social, economic, ecological and other systems are increasingly complex and interdependent, and that the aggregate phenomena that emerge do so as a reflection of the interaction between all the participants in the system (Hynes, Lees and Müller, 2020[57]). This involves viewing complex phenomena as interconnected and interdependent components within a larger system. It emphasises the relationships, patterns, and dynamics among these components rather than focusing on individual elements in isolation (White et al., 2023[29]).

Systems thinking can significantly empower individuals by demonstrating how their actions contribute to larger systems, thus preventing feelings of futility. When individuals recognise that their actions are part of a broader essential effort towards sustainability and climate resilience, they are more likely to feel motivated and empowered to take meaningful action. By showcasing the ripple effects of personal and collective actions within complex systems, systems thinking can help combat apathy and instil a sense of agency, purpose and efficacy in addressing climate challenges.

A systems-thinking approach emphasises the importance of adaptability and responsiveness in individual actions, policy, and decision-making. It acknowledges that the complex, interconnected nature of systems requires continuous learning and adjustment. This perspective aligns with contemporary understandings of policy making in the face of major crises, where high levels of uncertainty demand flexible and adaptive approaches, often referred to as "decision-making under uncertainty" (Lempert, 2019[58]; Haasnoot et al., 2013[59]). Learners who understand the dynamic nature of these problems and the corresponding responses are better equipped to engage civically with public policy. This understanding fosters a more informed and proactive community capable of contributing to policy development and implementation in ways that are responsive to real-time changes and uncertainties.

In addition, systems thinking recognises that systems are constantly evolving and are neither in nor converging towards a steady state, meaning that forecasting cannot rely on extrapolations from the past or on the analysis of isolated individual part of the system behaviour (Hynes, Lees and Müller, 2020[57]). Instead, it requires an understanding of the dynamic interactions within the system, which can lead to unexpected and non-linear outcomes. This understanding can empower learners of all ages by showing that the future is not predetermined to follow the same path of the past, thereby fostering a sense of hope and encouraging innovative thinking.

Analysis shows that there is a sharp increase in the number of systems thinking studies in the field of education research since 2016 (Bielik et al., 2023[60]). However, most of these studies focus on higher education, followed by high school and less on elementary students (Ibid). Enhancing the ability of students of all ages to become system thinkers requires an enhanced ability of teachers, at different stages of students’ lives, to apply fit-for-purpose methods, training and programs effectively.

Approaches for fostering system thinking may vary significantly according to the age of the students. For younger students, such as 4th graders, hands-on, inquiry-based learning that includes outdoor activities and lab experiments can be highly effective in helping them recognise and analyse system components and interconnections in real-world contexts (Assaraf and Orion, 2009[61]). In contrast, older students, such as those in secondary school, can also benefit more from structured digital courses that incorporate lessons, videos, and cognitive tasks designed to enhance their ability to analyse complex systems and understand relationships within them (Al-Menshawi and Abu Al-Yazeed, 2020[62]). Box 2.6 illustrates an initiative which aims to tailor learning to the needs of adolescents in secondary schools worldwide, by offering a systems-based educational framework that deepens understanding of climate complexity and fosters active participation.

Box 2.6. The Climate Academy: The rewards of engaging in complexity

The Climate Academy is a climate education programme currently engaging students in eight countries including from India, Luxembourg, Belgium and the United States. As environmental engagement tends to decline from early childhood, reaching its lowest point in early adolescence before stabilising in adulthood (Section on wFostering behavioural and social change for a sustainable future: a lifelong learning approach), the Climate Academy developed an approach targeted specifically at students in secondary education. While the reasons for the adolescent dip in environmental engagement are not fully understood, the Climate Academy proposes that a key factor may be the lack of complexity in environmental education. As other subjects advance in depth and complexity, environmental education often remains fragmented and repetitive, lacking the integrated framework necessary to engage adolescents who seek deeper, systemic understanding of global issues.

To address this gap, the Climate Academy aims to enhance climate education through a systems-informed approach designed to engage students aged 15-18 years old in the complexity of climate issues (The Climate Academy, n.d.[63]). The Academy has developed its own pedagogical material, offering concise yet in-depth content that promotes learning across various dimensions of the climate challenge and actionable responses, structured around three core pillars. The first pillar, Systems Understanding, equips students with a comprehensive view of climate change as a systemic issue, moving beyond individual actions to grasp the crisis' interconnected complexities. This is developed through a 16-step course that deepens both environmental and human understanding. The second pillar, Civic Service, engages students in translating their learning into impactful projects and initiatives, fostering community involvement and building leadership skills through peer teaching and public speaking. The third pillar, Systems Entrepreneurship, encourages students to tackle systemic barriers and propose innovative solutions for societal change, empowering them with resilience and the tools to shape sustainable futures. Students are rewarded with a range of certificates that recognise deeper competences in Systems Understanding, Civic Engagement and Systems Entrepreneurship.

In 2024, the programme operated in eight countries and mobilised roughly 750 students in these countries, ranging from climate enthusiasts but also students with lesser environmental interest, who have a motivation to prove their high-level credentials for university applications or jobs. In March 2025, the Academy will award over 600 Bronze certificates in Systems Understanding to students across India who will have completed the 16 steps. These students will also receive different levels of certification in Civic Service after brining this understanding into the public space through publications and events. One of the Climate Academy’s notable projects, “The Writings on the Wall,” helps students translate complex scientific concepts into public engagement through artistic means, such as murals at cultural festivals that had thousands of participants. Fifteen students from the Academy in Brussels will receive Gold certificates in recognition of their ’Deep Green Travel’ event to Varese in Italy: travelling by train, eating vegan, and using their week in the city to run workshops in schools, organise an event in a university, launch an art competition about climate systems collapse and how it disproportionately impacts women, and interview people in the street about climate literacy as an evidence base for an published article. Through this programme, the Climate Academy aims to fill an educational gap by providing the complexity and depth needed for active participation in climate solutions and discussions.

Source: (Seleviciute and Sturlyte, 2021[64]) With Art Protest, Concerned Students Raise Climate Alarm, https://news-decoder.com/with-art-protest-concerned-students-raise-climate-alarm/ (accessed on 5 December 2024); (VIBGYOR Group of Schools, 2024[65]), https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5IOm5cPIU4/?igsh=MW53amhtZTA0a3FyNw%3D%3D (accessed on 5 December 2024).

(The Climate Academy, n.d.[63]), The Climate Academy, https://theclimateacademy.org/ (accessed on 17 September 2024).

Fostering individual and collective action capacity via experiential learning

Equipping learners with understanding of the intricate relationships between ecological and human systems and the cognitive skills to identify effective solutions can contribute to building a sense of agency, self-efficacy and commitment to contributing to sustainability. Yet, a disproportionate focus on individual action may lead to a sense of futility, isolation and low subjective well-being. By contrast, social trust, support and a sense of collective action are key to effective action strategies (Ojala, 2016[66]).

Research indicates that experiential and project-based learning is of particular importance in supporting students’ individual and collective action competencies. In this context, whole-school approaches and place-based education approaches (PBE), i.e. those that are locally driven, community based, or ecologically focused can offer an adequate setting to connect learning to experiences. PBE approaches may include outdoor, community- and service-learning, which all seek to engage students cognitively, emotionally and physically in their learning while fostering a sense of connection between them and their surroundings (Elfer, 2011[67]).

Such approaches are found to encourage students to “make connections between content areas” (Foster and Piacentini, 2023[68]) and engage competencies such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and problem-solving (Hargreaves, 2008[69]; Tilbury and Galvin, 2022[70]). A companion paper to this report (Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]) offers a comprehensive review of PBE approaches in school education, how they can foster practical and authentic learning and engagement, as well as some of the challenges around this type of learning (Box 2.7).

Box 2.7. Place-based education to foster agency, equity and inclusion in learning about sustainability

Case studies exemplify that PBE can positively impact cognitive, emotional, and environmental outcomes across education levels when tailored to students’ developmental stages (Hernandez Gonzalez, 2023[71]). A central idea in PBE theory is that such a direct experience of sustainability concepts in specific places not only facilitates understanding, but also positive emotions like a sense of connectedness, belonging and care towards these places (Schweizer, Davis and Thompson, 2013[72]). Engaging student emotions is, however, not free of risk. Greater awareness and concern can trigger pessimism, and even negative impacts on mental health (Jensen, 2002[73]).

Given sufficient space and support, challenging emotions can be channelled constructively towards a heightened sense of responsibility and motivation to look out for solutions in collaboration with others (Chawla, 2022[38]; Lehtonen, Salonen and Cantell, 2018[74]). Lausselet and Zosso (2022[75]) illustrate how an age-appropriate learning progression in this field could look like. Their framework, reflected in Table 1, displays an evolution from early childhood, emphasising foundational bonds with nature and feelings of safety, to more intricate engagements in later stages.

In primary education, students are encouraged towards guided exploration, strengthening connection with the environment. In secondary school, the focus shifts to independent exploration and deepening commitment to environmental concerns, with students beginning to think about the systemic nature of environmental challenges. By upper secondary education, the curriculum advocates for a more reflexive approach, pushing students to apply their knowledge as they reach out to and act in their communities, communicate about environmental concerns and network with various actors. The outlined bonds, ranging from inclusive to performative, signify the depth and nature of the student-environment relationship at each stage.

Table 1. Age-appropriate outdoor environmental education

Learning progression for outdoor environmental education in early childhood, primary and secondary education

Early childhood (4-8-year-olds)	Primary (8-12-year-olds)	Lower secondary (12-15-year-olds)	Upper secondary (over 15 years old)
Sense of belonging	Exploration (guided)	Exploration (autonomous)	Reflexivity
Feeling safe within the environment	Adaptation (place <-> self)	Adaptation (place <-> self) and commitment	Commitment
Sense of well-being in the environment	Sense of well-being in the environment	Thinking the environment and myself in it	Communication to and with others about environment
Awakening to the complexity and richness of the environment	Caring for the environment	Caring for the environment	Networking with societal actors for the environment
Curiosity (about the living world)	Curiosity (about biodiversity) and understanding	Prospective curiosity (about possible transformations of the environment)	Action and agency
Inclusive bond	Adaptive bond	Transformative bond	Performative bond

Source: Lausselet and Zosso (2022[75]), Bonding with the World: A Pedagogical Approach In: Jucker, R., von Au, J. (eds), High-Quality Outdoor Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04108-2_15

In addition to matching educational goals and students’ developmental stages, an effective curriculum must also be culturally relevant to the students it serves. Research on human learning has recognised that learning in schools “may be facilitated if the out-of-school cultural practices of students are viewed as resources, tools, or assets” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018[76]). In grounding instruction in local phenomena, PBE can incorporate students’ unique perspectives into the curriculum and show one way in which culturally responsive instruction can be accomplished. All the same, given the diverse experiences that students bring into the classroom, their perceptions of a place and community can vary, which also poses challenges for instructional design.

Some scholars point out that a potential issue arises when the idea of place is subject to restrictive interpretations (McInerney, Smyth and Down, 2011[77]). There is a risk that PBE programmes present places as static and clearly defined, overlooking their dynamic and interconnected nature. Places are multifaceted and shaped by factors such as politics, race, gender, and class, which influence the relation individuals establish with them. Challenges appear when an idealised view of places neglects the challenging realities faced by those in less scenic or socially divided areas. In line with views stressing the civic and political aspects of PBE, the perspectives expressed here highlight the need to critically assess the physical, social, and cultural aspects of places, acknowledging student identities in the process.

Giving students voice in defining the themes and projects they will work on is one way to do this. The point is not for teachers to let students do what they want but negotiating the articulation of the programme with them, making them feel comfortable and motivated while ensuring the learning plan connects to the intended curriculum. Research shows that students in service-learning programmes are often given the opportunity to select the activity that best suits them, and that matching students’ preferences in this way can increase the benefits of the intervention (Moely, Furco and Reed, 2008[78]).

Source: (Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]) “Rethinking Education in the Context of Climate Change: Leverage Points for Transformative Change”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 307, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f14c8a81-en.

Beyond the school sector, students in higher levels of education will also need opportunities to gain practical experience working with environmental challenges as part of their education (Molderez and Fonseca, 2018[79]). In higher education institutions (HEIs), for example, place-based learning can happen when a higher education campus re-organises itself as a “living lab” and active learning space to promote experiential learning and problem-solving. In the Netherlands, for example, “green offices” exist in almost every HEI. These offices run activities with students and teachers to undertake sustainable projects, or design new sustainability-focused courses, often focused on the immediate campus environment and curriculum (Green Office Movement, n.d.[80]; OECD, 2023[81]).

Service learning is seen as another valuable method to implement PBE (OECD, 2023[82]; Drewery and Lollar, 2024[83]). Service learning can be defined as “a course-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in an organised service activity that meets identified community needs and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility” (Bringle and Hatcher, 1999, p. 180[84]). While there is no comparable international evidence on the extent to which and how HEIs in different countries engage in service learning, it is common practice in almost all HEIs in the United States (OECD, 2019[85]). In Europe, service learning has been much slower to develop and only started appearing in the 2000s. In 2019, the European Observatory for Service Learning in Higher Education (EOSLHE) found that at least 29 European countries had some level of activity of service learning, although this is not at all systematic (EOSLHE, 2020[86]).

In recent years, service learning has been used by many HEIs to link the curriculum to environmental challenges facing local communities. In many cases, such collaboration has also involved collaboration with the local school community, thereby fostering the development of practice-based research and continuing professional learning around sustainability for the teaching community (OECD, 2023[87]; OECD, 2023[87]). For example, Lancaster university in England (United Kingdom) has adopted a place-based approach centred on finding solutions to protect the environment in the Morecambe Bay to develop its higher education curricula. This is done in close collaboration with higher education and local school students, teachers, researchers and other community actors to “develop a locally-anchored and progressive curriculum which from early years to postgraduate, provide[s] the green skills, knowledge and behaviours required by industry to respond to the climate emergency” (Lancaster University, n.d.[88]) (see also Chapter 2).

Designing education and training policies that foster agency for socio-behavioural change

The identification of key “sustainability competencies” is an important step towards integrating sustainability into education. However, the real challenge lies in translating such learning goals and competency frameworks into actionable strategies within education systems. For effective implementation, these frameworks need to be embedded into education and training curricula, integrated in initial education and continuing professional learning for educators, as well as reflected in assessment and evaluation frameworks (Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]). Without such active support and integration, the frameworks risk remaining theoretical, without bringing the intended transformative impact on learners and educators. Therefore, beyond having these frameworks in place, concerted efforts are required to ensure they are effectively used to drive change within education systems.

Embedding sustainability in curricula, qualifications and study programmes

OECD and European Commission analyses show that the inclusion of sustainability among topics in curricula for compulsory education has become near universal in European and OECD countries (OECD, 2020[89]; OECD, 2022[19]; European Commission, 2024[90]). Yet, curriculum designers, including teachers themselves, face ongoing challenges of deciding which aspects to prioritise and where best to integrate them in often already overloaded curricula. For example, while Earth system science naturally finds its place in natural science curricula, the interactions of Earth systems with human activity and the intricate socio-ecological challenges of climate change fit equally well in social science curricula. OECD (2020[89]) found that countries vary widely with respect to the subjects in which environmental sustainability issues are covered, ranging from science and humanities subjects, to mathematics, technology/home economics, national language, arts and physical education/health.

Going further, due to the inter-disciplinary nature of sustainability challenges and their wide-reaching impacts on all aspects of life, many curricula establish it not just within specific subjects but as a cross-curricular priority. The OECD’s Curriculum Content Mapping (CCM), which analysed curriculum goals for primary and secondary education in 37 countries and jurisdictions, found that environmental sustainability was the most frequently cited transversal theme included in countries’ overarching goals for education (OECD, 2020[89]).

In upper secondary and post-secondary education and training, where providers are more autonomous in developing curriculum content than in lower levels of schooling, there is potentially more scope for adding specific courses, programmes and qualifications addressing sustainability topics. Adding new content related to sustainability requires choosing between adapting existing courses (which requires finding a link to existing content), creating additional formal courses, or expanding opportunities for applied learning, such as experiential, challenge-based or work-based learning (which may require the omission of other courses) (OECD, 2023[82]; OECD, 2024[91]).

Interdisciplinary approaches are being incentivised in many school systems. Norway’s core curriculum, for example, has citizenship and sustainable development as one of three overarching curriculum development topics, alongside health and life skills (Norwegian Education Directorate, 2020[92]). Ireland has sought to embed climate action and sustainability as a cross-curricular topic at all levels of education and has recently introduced the Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development (CASD) specification in the Senior Cycle. A recent consultation process has revealed some of the challenges and opportunities in developing this new sustainability-focused course (Box 2.8).

Box 2.8. Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development in Ireland

Since the introduction of a national strategy on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in 2014, Ireland has sought to embed climate action and ESD at all levels of education including in early childhood, primary, and secondary education, fostering vertical and horizontal alignment in the curriculum. Ireland’s cross-curricular approach meant that different subjects were expected to cover different, but complementary, elements of ESD. For example, in upper secondary education (Senior Cycle), Agricultural Science addresses the use of natural resources at local, national, and global levels, and the role of the agri-food industry in climate change, among other issues. ESD also promotes links across areas of knowledge, such as reinforcing the interdependence of scientific, economic, and social dimensions within Leaving Certificate Agricultural Science.

Ireland’s commitment to climate action and sustainable development has remained steadfast, though its approach to ESD has evolved over the years as articulated in the 2nd National Strategy – ESD to 2030. A key development is the introduction of the Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development (CASD) specification in the Senior Cycle. The subject will initially be introduced in a small number of schools, called Phase One schools, from 2025. The introduction of this new subject is part of a broader Senior Cycle redevelopment programme, announced in 2022.

CASD’s overarching aim is to develop students’ capacity for informed and meaningful action toward a just and sustainable world. It will provide Senior Cycle students with a foundational knowledge of climate science, while encouraging them to explore their roles as global citizens. The subject will examine systems of decision making, the drivers of global poverty, the root causes of climate and sustainability issues, and environmental injustice. Additionally, CASD will leverage innovative teaching and learning approaches to promote student voice, critical thinking, creativity, and collective and democratic action. The subject aims to foster solidarity with communities affected by climate change, and students will engage with these challenges through an interdisciplinary, solutions-focused approach that prepares them to contribute meaningfully to a sustainable future. An Additional Assessment Component - an Action Project, worth 40% of the total available marks - will offer students opportunities to pursue their interests, make autonomous decisions, acquire conceptual understanding, and self-regulate their learning.

Consultation on the draft CASD specification (NCCA, 2024[93]) was overall very positive regarding its rationale and aims. However, challenges were raised, including potential overlap with other existing subject areas, particularly Geography, and concerns about which teachers would be qualified to teach the course. There was also discussion about maintaining the status of CASD compared to traditional single-discipline subjects. Nonetheless, there are significant opportunities, such as the potential to introduce new curricular structures, with the Action Project broadly welcomed—provided its manageability is addressed. The final specification was published in early September 2024.

Source: (NCCA, 2024[94]) Draft Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development Specification; (NCCA, 2024[95]) Background Paper and Brief for the Development of Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development; (NCCA, 2024[93]) Report on the Consultation on the Draft Specification for Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development; (OECD, 2023[96]) “Implementation of Ireland’s Leaving Certificate 2020-2021: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 73, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e36a10b8-en.

Although most countries establish overarching cross-curricular goals for education and training, implementation of these interdisciplinary goals in teaching practice is often challenging, due to the traditional organisation of schools and other educational institutions where learning is often organised around strict subject and disciplinary boundaries and teaching is organised as an individual rather than a collaborative practice (OECD, 2013[97]; OECD, 2019[98]). Curriculum realisation challenges are often compounded by the existence of narrow evaluation and assessment systems that lag behind countries’ broader, competency-based learning objectives (Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]). By contrast, an emphasis on assessment for and as learning may help promote more innovative formats of assessment (OECD, 2013[97]), and there are also various ways to rethink standardised assessments to include complex skills like problem-solving, creativity and communication (Foster and Piacentini, 2023[68]).

In higher education as well, many countries are seeking to develop greater interdisciplinarity, for example by incentivising higher education institutions (HEIs) to develop programmes which integrate knowledge from various fields such as science, economics and social and political studies (Carme Gual, 2019[99]). This is based on the premise that complex global challenges are multidimensional in nature and cannot be understood or resolved from individual disciplinary perspectives (Jacob, 2015[100]). But here, also, this often conflicts with traditional academic staff organisation and reward structures that tend to prioritise research output and publications in high-impact journals, which are typically discipline-specific. To support curriculum adaptation processes, governments can foster collaboration across key stakeholders to map the extent to which sustainability is covered in curricula at various levels of education, identify gap areas and develop guidance and frameworks to support curriculum adaptation (see Box 2.9 for an example from Denmark).

Box 2.9. Mapping curriculum coverage of sustainability content in Denmark

In January 2022, the Danish government adopted an Action Plan on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). This was developed in response to a review carried out by the Nordic Council of Ministers which found that sustainability is described more implicitly in Danish curricula than in Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (Secretary of the Nordic Council of Ministers and Nordic Council of Ministers, 2021[101]). This led to the establishment of a national partnership, involving representatives from all levels of education, including VET and higher education, to review the state of play of ESD in all levels of education and training. The national review informed the publication of a report in September 2022 including concrete recommendations on how to strengthen ESD in the national learning and assessment practices in all levels of education and training (UBU, 2022[102]).

Source: (Secretary of the Nordic Council of Ministers and Nordic Council of Ministers, 2021[101]) Mapping Education for Sustainability in the Nordic Countries, Nordic Co-Operation, https://www.norden.org/en/publication/mapping-education-sustainability-nordic-countries (accessed on 9 March 2023); (UBU, 2022[102]) PÅ VEJ MOD UDDANNELSER FOR BÆREDYGTIG UDVIKLING, Government of Denmark, https://verdensmaalene.cdn.prismic.io/verdensmaalene/0f0df43a-2e4a-463e-bc4d-5af1330bf793_UBU_rapport_sept22.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2023).

Bringing place-based approaches to scale

As discussed above, place-based, collaborative, project-based and experiential approaches can be powerful ways to empower learners to exercise agency. They can also address equity concerns by responding to diverse local needs and perspectives and facilitating various forms of expression, thereby engaging a broader range of student profiles and families in the local community.

A key challenge for these approaches, however, is to move beyond isolated “islands of good practice” within individual classrooms or courses and bring effective approaches to scale. Schools and educational providers, positioned between the practice of individual teachers and the broad directives of system-wide policy, have a key role to play in supporting such practices. Educational institutions can offer a clear vision and related structures for embedding sustainable learning and action throughout all aspects of institutional life.

This idea is encapsulated by the term “whole-school” or “whole-institution approach” to sustainability. By integrating sustainability into the institution’s operations and infrastructure, and linking these actions to student learning, a more holistic educational experience is cultivated. Because educational institutions are large consumers of goods and services, “greening” their operations, such as in reducing their energy consumption, is a positive step in and of itself (OECD, 2021[103]). Going further, making students an active part of this process provides them with authentic learning experiences to apply their knowledge (Okada and Gray, 2023[104]).

A more widespread adoption of whole-institution approaches within education and training systems requires synergies between the leadership at the institution and community levels and the strategic policy frameworks enacted by governments. Additionally, system-level policies are essential in providing the frameworks, resources, and incentives for educational providers to prioritise place-based action. For example, granting recognition to providers that incorporate sustainability considerations in all aspects of their operations, such as in “green” labelling programmes like Eco-schools (Foundation for Environmental Education, n.d.[105]), can be an effective form of external pressure to raise students’ environmental literacy (Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem, 2017[106]; Byrne et al., 2023[107]; Cincera and Krajhanzl, 2013[108]). Policies to build capacity can include self-evaluation guidelines for schools to systematically review their initiatives and measure progress.

Adapting initial education and continuing professional learning for educators

Although most countries establish overarching cross-curricular goals for education and training, implementation of these interdisciplinary goals in teaching practice is often challenging, if not adequately supported. This is due to the traditional organisation of schools and other educational institutions where learning is often organised around strict subject and disciplinary boundaries and teaching is organised as an individual rather than a collaborative practice (OECD, 2013[97]; OECD, 2019[98]). Additionally, subject teachers often find it challenging to link climate change content to their discipline, adding further difficulties. Little internationally comparable information is available on teachers’ engagement with topics, but comprehensive information will become available from the OECD’s 2024 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS).

Box 2.10. Forthcoming OECD data on teachers’ engagement with sustainability

The OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 will collect a rich set of internationally comparable indicators on teachers’ engagement with environmental and sustainability education and climate change education. This will offer information on different aspects of teachers’ engagement with these topics, including their attitudes towards sustainability and climate education, their attitudes towards climate change itself (such as their level of concern), their professional opportunities to learn about climate change, and the barriers they experience to teaching about climate change. TALIS also includes a principal questionnaire and collects information on actions taken by principals to adapting school infrastructure in the context of climate change. Once collected, the data will allow policymakers to evaluate different characteristics of teachers and teaching related to climate change and sustainability. The initial report from TALIS 2024 will be released in October 2025 and a dedicated report on teachers’ engagement with environmental, sustainability and climate change education will follow in 2026.

Source: (Nusche, Fuster Rabella and Lauterbach, 2024[13]) “Rethinking education in the context of climate change: Leverage points for transformative change”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 307, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f14c8a81-en.

In most countries, initial teacher education (ITE) is delivered by teacher education institutes operating in highly autonomous HEIs, making the integration of sustainability across ITE curricula delivered by different HEIs challenging (OECD, 2022[19]). Evidence also shows that ITE curricula primarily address sustainability issues as an elective course or on a project basis (Tasiopoulou et al, 2022[109]; Evans, 2019[110]). In addition, sustainability topics are mainly addressed in those ITE curricula that prepare teachers specifically for the subjects that have the closest link to climate change, such as Geography or Science, but not systematically in all ITE courses, which is at odds with the cross-curricular nature of the objective in many countries.

In Europe, the European Commission carried out a comprehensive assessment of the inclusion of sustainability in regulations or guidelines for ITE and found that less than half of the education systems studied have regulations or guidelines that include sustainability education in ITE. While these provisions often apply to all prospective teachers, they are sometimes specific to certain subjects. About a third of systems address the understanding of sustainability issues, while a dozen systems focus on interdisciplinary teaching that promotes critical thinking, problem-solving, and respect for diverse values. Fewer systems address partnerships connecting learners with nature and global communities. The implementation of these guidelines can vary significantly, as ITE providers typically enjoy autonomy in developing their programmes. In some cases, sustainability-related content is incorporated even without explicit regulations, especially when sustainability is part of the national curriculum. The existence of these regulations signals efforts by public authorities to integrate sustainability in education, though variation in operationalisation and evaluation can lead to uneven implementation across regions (European Commission, 2024[90])

In Ireland, to strengthen consistency in how different providers approach ITE, all HEIs offering ITE must obtain accreditation from the Teaching Council and meet seven standards. One of these is “Global Citizenship Education” and includes a focus on education for sustainable development (The Teaching Council, 2020[111]). In Finland, alignment of ITE curricula is supported through the Teacher Education Forum, which was established in 2016 by the Ministry of Education. The Forum provides a platform for teacher educators, VET and schoolteachers, municipalities, researchers, students and other relevant stakeholders to engage in research-based collaboration through literature reviews, peer learning and benchmarking. These activities centre on national guidelines and priorities for the further development of teacher education in Finland, one of which is climate change (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2022[112]). In the French Community of Belgium (FWB), a recent reform of initial teacher education has also included a focus on developing teacher educators’ environmental sustainability literacy (see Box 2.11).

Box 2.11. Integration of education for sustainability in initial teacher education in the French Community of Belgium

In 2019, the French Community of Belgium started a major reform of its initial teacher education system. One of the main objectives of the reform was to support teacher educators to develop pedagogies in support of social and intercultural competencies among learners, notably to enable them to act as responsible citizens for their school and local community.

To support the implementation of this specific action in relation to environmental sustainability, a Commission on Sustainable Development from the Academy of Research and Higher Education developed a set of guidelines on how HEIs ca implement ESD into teacher training curricula. The report recommends three major approaches:

1) The integration of transversal competencies related to ESD across all disciplines (e.g. an introductory module on ESD and the socio-ecological transition as a common course for all teacher educators);

2) The development of specific competencies on ESD, linked to the specific discipline(s) or course(s) for which teachers educators are being prepared (i.e. integration in existing ITE courses); and

3) Inclusion of opportunities for experiential learning and experimentation related to environmental sustainability in all ITE curricula.

Source: Based on FWB (2019[113]), Décret définissant la formation initiale des enseignants [Decree on initial teacher education], French Community of Belgium (FWB), https://www.gallilex.cfwb.be/fr/leg_res_02.php?ncda=46261&referant=l01 (accessed on 2 September 2024).and (2022[114]), Mise en oeuvre du décret relatif à la formation initiale des enseignants au développement durable [Implementation of the decree on initial teacher education for sustainable development], Academy of Research and Higher Education (ARES), https://rfie.ares-ac.be/ressources/th%C3%A9matiques-transversales/d%C3%A9veloppement-durable (accessed on 2 September 2024).

The integration of sustainability topics in continuing professional learning also needs strengthening (this is discussed in more detail in the section on Building a coherent skills delivery landscape for the green transition). Interdisciplinary approaches are becoming more common across professions as a way of responding to contemporary and future challenges (McGrath, 2023[115]; Helvaci and Helvaci, 2019[116]), making it necessary for all professions, including teachers, to engage in continuing professional learning to acquire relevant skills of working this way (Lawson and Veen, 2016[117]). For teachers, potential opportunities for professional learning include working with other teachers as well as partnerships with other professionals (McGrath, 2023[115]; Day, 2002[118]). This can lead to career specialisation focuses related to curriculum interests (Song and Wang, 2021[119]; Wang et al., 2020[120]; Choi et al., 2022[121]). To be successful, schools will need to be supported to develop positive and sustainable professional networks that add to the value of schooling in a meaningful way (OECD, 2024[122]).

For HEIs, which might play a key role in developing the cross-disciplinary integration of sustainability considerations, specifically recognising and encouraging efforts of staff to collaborate across faculties and departments and break down disciplinary barriers can be crucial in motivating these professional learning efforts (Ashby and Exter, 2018[123]; OECD, 2024[91]). Incentives for interdisciplinary collaboration within higher education can be developed at institution and system level. National teaching awards, for example, recognising outstanding individuals or teams, are present in around half of European higher education systems (Bunescu and Gaebel, 2018[124]).

In Germany, the Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainability and Climate Impact Management” (FTZ-NK) at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences is an example of how academic staff from various disciplines within a single institution can be incentivised to join forces to address global challenges (Molthan-Hill et al., 2019[125]; HAW Hamburg, 2024[126]). The Centre's International Climate Change Information and Research Programme (ICCIRP) encourages research from doctoral students in critical areas of sustainability and climate change. It also facilitates education and communication about climate change through workshops and conferences, thereby facilitating inter-disciplinary collaboration across the institution around climate change. Similarly, teacher educators from Tallinn University in Estonia reported that the integration of sustainability in their curricula worked as a powerful incentive for teacher educators to collaborate with climate change experts from other faculties (OECD, 2023[87]).

Promoting engagement in sustainability learning beyond formal education

Formal, informal and non-formal learning all play a critical role in fostering agency among learners of all ages and motivating actions tackling the climate and other environmental crises. Individuals learn constantly, being able to accumulate knowledge, skills and competences throughout their lifetimes, often extending well beyond the boundaries of organised formal education.

Learning may occur at the initiative of the individual but also happens as a by-product of more organised activities, whether or not the activities themselves have learning objectives (Werquin, 2010[127]). Evidence indicates however that non-formal education programs can have long-term impacts, with studies showing lasting educational, economic, and mental health benefits, especially when programs build life skills, foster community connections, and emphasise gender equality (Simac, Marcus and Harper, 2019[128]). This section explores avenues for extending information and learning opportunities beyond the formal education sector.

Information campaigns and consumer education

Studies have shown that well-executed communication strategies and targeted campaigns, have the potential to contribute to enhancing understanding and engagement, leading to more informed and active participation in environmental initiatives (Ockwell, Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2009[129]; Segerberg, 2017[130]; Goldberg et al., 2021[131]; Gulliver, Fielding and Louis, 2019[132]; Green et al., 2019[133]).

Public communication and awareness-raising campaigns often offer effective learning opportunities that significantly influence public perception and action regarding climate change, shaping agendas at local, national, and international levels (Khatibi et al., 2021[10]). With increasing internet access, online and social media platforms have become crucial for engaging the public, informing them about climate issues, and mobilizing action (Segerberg, 2017[130]). Campaigns are typically articulated around four main goals: (i) to inform, raise awareness, and shape public understanding about the science, problems, and politics of climate change; (ii) to change consumer and citizen behaviour; (iii) to network and connect concerned publics; and (iv) to visibly mobilise consumers or citizens to put pressure on decision-makers (Segerberg, 2017[130]).

Consumer education initiatives can play a potentially important role in fostering informed and sustainable behaviours. Barriers to sustainable consumption are multifaceted, ranging from a lack of viable alternatives and reliable information to psychological factors like low motivation and trust issues (Capgemini, 2021[134]; European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment, 2020[135]). To address these challenges, several remedies have been identified that aim to target the intention-action gap by making sustainable choices more accessible and appealing to consumers. These include interventions such as information provision, green claims, that is, a statement made by a company or product suggesting that it is environmentally friendly or sustainable, and eco- labels to improve the visibility of sustainable options.

For example, Schubert (2017[136]) shows that highlighting the importance of sustainable product features or simplifying related information can leverage consumer interest in adopting greener choices. In addition, by leveraging social norms to promote conformity and pro-environmental behaviour, consumers' actions can be influenced as they tend to base their behaviour on the observed or inferred actions of others. (Schultz, Khazian and Zaleski, 2008[137]; Kormos, Gifford and Brown, 2014[138]). Lastly, green defaults, which make sustainable choices the path of least resistance, can effectively leverage consumers' tendency to stick with the status quo and promote pro-environmental behaviour. For example, Liebe, Gewinner and Diekmann (2021[139]) found that when renewable energy was presented as the default option to existing customers, approximately 80% of both household and business clients chose to remain with the green energy alternative and that that effect was largely stable over time.

Education plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes and behaviours, as higher levels of education are often associated with greater environmental awareness and a stronger willingness to act, as discussed, and to adopt sustainable practices in particular (Piao and Managi, 2023[140]). Over recent years, there has been a steady rise in the number of studies focusing on education and sustainable consumption, as schools, universities, along with information campaigns play a crucial role in shaping the ideas and attitudes of populations (de Oliveira et al., 2022[141]). Education plays a role in disseminating information about the benefits, either global or personal, of adopting sustainable practices. Fischer and Barth (2014[142]) argue that transversal competencies are essential for addressing the complex challenges of sustainable consumption, advocating for a broad and effective educational strategy that goes beyond merely training skills, providing information, and testing for results. Al-Nuaimi and Al-Ghamdi (2022[143]) show that higher education institutions play a key role in promoting sustainable consumption through both formal curricula and experiential learning opportunities, which help students internalize sustainable practices and contribute to broader environmental initiatives on campus.

Science-based activism

The increased collaboration of activists with scientists and researchers represents new learning opportunities for all those involved, outside of formal education settings. Many scholars are now focusing on research that supports activism, though traditional research impact metrics still often undervalue this contribution (McLaren et al., 2024[144]). For example, through a series of online workshops, both activists and academics from several European countries came together to share experiences and to develop proposals for future research that can support activism (McLaren et al., 2024[144]). This partnership can yield results in the near and mid-term in influencing public awareness and policy.

Accompanying this surge in climate activism and campaigning, the advances in attribution science (Stuart-Smith et al., 2021[145]) and fruitful collaboration between activists, scientist and lawyers have led to a steep increase in climate litigation worldwide (Figure 2.13), where individuals, communities, and environmental groups seek accountability and justice through the courts. By improving the ability to link specific environmental events and trends directly to human activities, particularly GHG emissions (Stuart-Smith et al., 2021[145]; Pfrommer et al., 2019[146]), this scientific progress has provided stronger evidence for legal claims. Again here, there are learning opportunities for all stakeholders involved that go beyond formal education.

Figure 2.13. Increase in number of climate litigation cases

Source: (Setzer J and Higham C, 2024[147]) Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2024-snapshot.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2024).

Towards a strategic approach to science communication

Higher education can play a key role in helping individuals across all layers of society develop an understanding of the systemic nature of climate change, and their role in it. To achieve this, however, higher education itself will need to adapt the way in which it delivers education and engages with wider society.

In a world where social media and digital platforms have radically altered the science communication landscape, mis- and disinformation have become large-scale and widespread, including climate change related disinformation and climate change denial (OECD, 2023[148]). As beacons of science and innovation, HEIs have an ethical duty to not only produce evidence-based information about the causes, consequences and possible solutions to climate change, but also to engage with society to communicate this information in a transparent and reliable way.

For many academics, however, science communication is carried out on an ad hoc or one-off project basis rather than being a core part of their (research) activities. A survey of more than 7 000 full-time academics at HEIs in 13 countries7 across the world has found that full-time academics tend to spend only 7% of their time on service and engagement on average. 30% of their annualised hours are spent on teaching, around 40% on research activities, and about 15% on administration (Bentley and Kyvik, 2012[149]). A lack of time, (financial) resources, training and recognition for engaging in effective science communication are cited as some of the main reasons for the lack of more continual engagement in science communication by academic staff (OECD, 2023[150]).

There are indications, however, that science communication has become more important in recent years for many HEIs. A survey by the International Association of Universities covering 111 jurisdictions has found that 45% of respondents said that they engaged and increased their public outreach activity during the COVID-19 pandemic (Marinoni, Van’t Land and Jensen, 2020[151]). Climate change, another global challenge, may be used as an equally powerful lever to mobilise the higher education sector to engage ore actively in science communication.

To develop science communication in higher education, governments can support the development of institutional and national support structures for academic staff. In an effort to bundle resources and facilitate collaboration, some HEIs have set up a dedicated unit to support academic staff with science communication. For example, Durham University in England (United Kingdom) has a dedicated Science and Communication Outreach Department which supports academic staff to engage and establish partnerships with local and global actors, businesses, government and civil society (Durham University, n.d.[152]). At system level, public authorities in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have funded the development of guidelines for HEIs on how to support and reward scientists who work structurally on science communication (RCUK, 2020[153]; KNAW, 2022[154]). Some countries have also set up national support centres for science communication to promote peer learning among academics engaged in science communication. Examples are Germany’s Science in Dialogue Centre (Wissenschaft im Dialog) (Wissenschaft im Dialog, n.d.[155]), the National Centre for Science Communication in the Netherlands (Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2022[156]), or the National Co-Ordinating Centre for Public Engagement in the United Kingdom (NCCPE, n.d.[157]).

In conclusion, scaling climate solutions requires a multifaceted approach where informal and non-formal learning can play a crucial role in fostering agency and willingness to adopt sustainable behaviours. Informal and non-formal learning avenues complement formal education by providing focused, practical, hands-on experiences and continuous learning opportunities that empower individuals to act on climate issues. By integrating these diverse educational approaches, policymakers can create a robust framework that drives meaningful action tackling climate and other environmental challenges.

References

[62] Al-Menshawi, A. and S. Abu Al-Yazeed (2020), “Developing Skills of Systemic Thinking for Secondary Students”, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Educational Studies, Vol. 1/1, pp. 31-33, https://doi.org/10.21608/ihites.2020.29074.1014.

[143] Al-Nuaimi, S. and S. Al-Ghamdi (2022), “Sustainable Consumption and Education for Sustainability in Higher Education”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/12, p. 7255, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127255.

[40] Aoyagi, M. et al. (2024), World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming, 2004-2024., https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/world/index.html (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[114] ARES (2022), Mise en oeuvre du décret relatif à la formation initial des enseignants [ et développement durable [Implementation of the decree on initial teacher education for sustainable development], Academy of Research and Higher Education (ARES), https://rfie.ares-ac.be/ressources/th%C3%A9matiques-transversales/d%C3%A9veloppement-durable (accessed on 2 September 2024).

[3] Arias, P. et al. (eds.) (2023), Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland., IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.

[35] Asai, K., F. Borgonovi and S. Wildi (2022), “Understanding how economic conditions and natural disasters shape environmental attitudes: A cross-country comparison to inform policy making”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 280, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8e880ea2-en.

[123] Ashby, A. and M. Exter (2018), “Designing for Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: Considerations for Instructional Designers”, TechTrends, Vol. 63, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-018-0352-z.

[61] Assaraf, O. and N. Orion (2009), “System thinking skills at the elementary school level”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 47/5, pp. 540-563, https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351.

[164] Bax, W. et al. (2023), “What Works Best in the School-to-Work Transition?”, OECD: The Network Forum.

[149] Bentley, P. and S. Kyvik (2012), “Academic work from a comparative perspective: A survey of faculty working time across 13 countries”, Higher Education, Vol. 63/4, pp. 529-47, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-011-9457-4/TABLES/7 (accessed on 28 July 2023).

[54] Ben‐Zvi‐Assaraf, O. and N. Orion (2010), “Four case studies, six years later: Developing system thinking skills in junior high school and sustaining them over time”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 47/10, pp. 1253-1280, https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20383.

[51] Bianchi, G., U. Pisiotis and M. Cabrera Giraldez (2022), GreenComp - The European Sustainability Competence Framework, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

[60] Bielik, T. et al. (2023), “Characterising the Literature on the Teaching and Learning of System Thinking and Complexity in STEM Education: a Bibliometric Analysis and Research Synthesis”, Journal for STEM Education Research, Vol. 6/2, pp. 199-231, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00087-9.

[106] Boeve-de Pauw, J. and P. Van Petegem (2017), “Eco-school evaluation beyond labels: the impact of environmental policy, didactics and nature at school on student outcomes”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 24/9, pp. 1250-1267, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1307327.

[166] Borgonovi, F. et al. (2022), “The environmental sustainability competence toolbox: From leaving a better planet for our children to leaving better children for our planet”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 275, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27991ec0-en.

[41] Brannen, S., C. Haig and K. Schmidt (2020), The age of mass protests - understanding an escalating global trend, CSIS, https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/200303_MassProtests_V2.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2024).

[43] Brehm, J. and H. Gruhl (2024), “Increase in concerns about climate change following climate strikes and civil disobedience in Germany”, Nature Communications, Vol. 15/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46477-4.

[84] Bringle, R. and J. Hatcher (1999), “Reflection in Service Learning: Making Meaning or Experience”, Evaluation/Reflection, Vol. 23, pp. 179-185, https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceeval/23/ (accessed on 4 April 2023).

[124] Bunescu, L. and M. Gaebel (2018), “National Initiatives in Learning and Teaching in Europe”, A report from the European Forum for Enhanced Collaboration in Teaching (EFFECT) project. Brussels: European University Association, https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/national%20initiatives%20in%20learning%20and%20teaching%20in%20europe.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2023).

[107] Byrne, M. et al. (2023), Review of the Eco-Schools Environmental Education Programme in Wales (2018-2022), Welsh Government, Cardiff, https://www.gov.wales/eco-schools-programme-wales-review-april-2018-january-2022 (accessed on 11 December 2023).

[134] Capgemini (2021), Consumer Products and Retail - How sustainability is fundamentally changing consumer preferences, https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/20-06_9880_Sustainability-in-CPR_Final_Web-1-2.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2024).

[99] Carme Gual (2019), “Are universities ready to have a real impact on achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs)?”, in Josep M. Vilalta et al. (eds.), Implementing the 2030 Agenda at Higher Education Institutions: Challenges and Responses.

[46] Carnegie (n.d.), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Climate Protest Tracker, https://carnegieendowment.org/features/climate-protest-tracker?lang=en (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[50] Chancel, L. et al. (2022), World Inequality Report 2022, World Inequality Lab, https://wir2022.wid.world/ (accessed on 9 December 2024).

[38] Chawla, L. (2022), “Childhood Nature Connection and Constructive Hope: Helping Young People Connect with Nature and Cope with Environmental Loss”, in Jucker, R. and J. von Au (eds.), High-Quality Outdoor Learning.

[121] Choi, S. et al. (2022), “Professional Learning Communities: Supporting Interdisciplinary Teaching in STEM”, in 7th STEM in Education Conference 2022 Proceedings.

[108] Cincera, J. and J. Krajhanzl (2013), “Eco-Schools: what factors influence pupils’ action competence for pro-environmental behaviour?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 61, pp. 117-121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.030.

[162] Committee on How People Learn II: The Science and Practice of Learning et al. (2018), How People Learn II, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.17226/24783.

[6] Creutzig, F. et al. (2021), “Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 12/1, pp. 36-46, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01219-y.

[20] Damerell, P., C. Howe and E. Milner-Gulland (2013), “Child-orientated environmental education influences adult knowledge and household behaviour”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8/1, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015016.

[118] Day, C. (2002), Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning, Routledge.

[141] de Oliveira, U. et al. (2022), “Systematic Literature Review on Sustainable Consumption from the Perspective of Companies, People and Public Policies”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/21, p. 13771, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113771.

[2] Dhakal, S. et al. (2022), “Emissions Trends and Drivers”, in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.004.

[83] Drewery, M. and J. Lollar (2024), “Undergraduates’ perceptions of the value of service-learning”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1330456.

[152] Durham University (n.d.), Science Outreach and Engagement, https://www.dur.ac.uk/science.outreach/ (accessed on 14 April 2023).

[156] Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2022), Nederland krijgt nationaal centrum voor wetenschapscommunicatie [Netherlands Gets National Centre for Science Communication], Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2022/05/25/nederland-krijgt-nationaal-centrum-voor-wetenschapscommunicatie (accessed on 22 June 2023).

[33] Earth4All (2024), The Earth for All 2024 Survey: Exploring global attitudes to political and economic transformation, https://earth4all.life/global-survey-2024/.

[67] Elfer, C. (2011), Place-based education: A review of historical precedents in theory & practice, https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/elfer_charles_j_201108_phd.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).

[86] EOSLHE (2020), State of the Art of Service-Learning in European Higher Education, European Observatory of Service Learning in Higher Education (EOSLHE), https://www.eoslhe.eu/state-of-the-art-of-service-learning-in-european-higher-education/ (accessed on 25 June 2023).

[30] ESS (2016), ESS round 8 - 2016. Welfare attitudes, Attitudes to climate change, https://ess.sikt.no/en/study/f8e11f55-0c14-4ab3-abde-96d3f14d3c76 (accessed on 28 August 2024).

[90] European Commission (2024), “Learning for sustainability in Europe: Building competences and supporting teachers and schools”, https://doi.org/10.2797/87405.

[135] European Commission: Directorate-General for Environment (2020), Attitudes of Europeans towards the environment – Report, European Commission, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/902489.

[165] European Commission: European Education and Culture Executive Agency (2024), Learning for sustainability in Europe – Building competences and supporting teachers and schools – Eurydice report, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/81397.

[110] Evans, T. (2019), “Competencies and Pedagogies for Sustainability Education: A Roadmap for Sustainability Studies Program Development in Colleges and Universities”, Sustainability, Vol. 11/19, p. 5526, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195526.

[142] Fischer, D. and M. Barth (2014), “Key Competencies <i>for</i> and <i>beyond</i> Sustainable Consumption An Educational Contribution to the Debate”, GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, Vol. 23/3, pp. 193-200, https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.s1.7.

[68] Foster, N. and M. Piacentini (eds.) (2023), Innovating Assessments to Measure and Support Complex Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e5f3e341-en.

[105] Foundation for Environmental Education (n.d.), About Eco-Schools, Foundation for Environmental Education, https://www.ecoschools.global/.

[45] Fritz, L. et al. (2023), “Perceived impacts of the Fridays for Future climate movement on environmental concern and behaviour in Switzerland”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 18/5, pp. 2219-2244, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01348-7.

[113] FWB (2019), Décret définissant la formation initiale des enseignants [Decree on initial teacher education], French Community of Belgium (FWB), Brussels, https://www.gallilex.cfwb.be/fr/leg_res_02.php?ncda=46261&referant=l01 (accessed on 2 September 2024).

[8] Gibbs, J. and F. Cappuccio (2022), “Plant-Based Dietary Patterns for Human and Planetary Health”, Nutrients, Vol. 14/8, p. 1614, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14081614.

[131] Goldberg, M. et al. (2021), “Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 11/7, pp. 573-577, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01070-1.

[80] Green Office Movement (n.d.), Take the online course to start your Green Office, https://www.greenofficemovement.org/ (accessed on 7 August 2024).

[133] Green, K. et al. (2019), “A Meta-Analysis of Social Marketing Campaigns to Improve Global Conservation Outcomes”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 25/1, pp. 69-87, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500418824258.

[132] Gulliver, R., K. Fielding and W. Louis (2019), “Understanding the Outcomes of Climate Change Campaigns in the Australian Environmental Movement”, Case Studies in the Environment, Vol. 3/1, pp. 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2018.001651.

[59] Haasnoot, M. et al. (2013), “Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 23/2, pp. 485-498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006.

[16] Han, H. and S. Ahn (2020), “Youth Mobilization to Stop Global Climate Change: Narratives and Impact”, Sustainability, Vol. 12/10, p. 4127, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104127.

[69] Hargreaves, L. (2008), “The whole-school approach to eduation for sustainable development: From pilot projects to systemic change”, Education for Sustainable Development, https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-6/whole-school-approach-eduation-sustainable-development-pilot-projects-systemic-change (accessed on 4 April 2023).

[126] HAW Hamburg (2024), SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE MANAGEMENT, https://www.haw-hamburg.de/en/ftz-nk/.

[116] Helvaci, S. and I. Helvaci (2019), “An interdisciplinary environmental education approach: Determining the effects of E-STEM activity on environmental awareness.”, Universal Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 7/2, pp. 337-346.

[71] Hernandez Gonzalez, F. (2023), “Exploring the Affordances of Place-Based Education for Advancing Sustainability Education: The Role of Cognitive, Socio-Emotional and Behavioural Learning”, Education Sciences, Vol. 13/7, p. 676, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070676.

[57] Hynes, W., M. Lees and J. Müller (eds.) (2020), Systemic Thinking for Policy Making: The Potential of Systems Analysis for Addressing Global Policy Challenges in the 21st Century, New Approaches to Economic Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/879c4f7a-en.

[1] IPCC (2022), “Summary for Policymakers”, in P.R. Shukla et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

[22] IPCC (2018), “Summary for Policymakers”, in Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate.....

[36] Ipsos (2021), Perils of Perception: Climate Change, https://www.ipsos.com/en/ipsos-perils-perception-climate-change (accessed on 11 October 2023).

[31] ISSP (2020), ISSP 2020 “Environment IV” - ZA No. 7650, https://www.gesis.org/en/issp/data-and-documentation/environment/2020 (accessed on 28 August 2024).

[7] Ivanova, D. et al. (2020), “Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15/9, p. 093001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589.

[100] Jacob, W. (2015), “Interdisciplinary trends in higher education”, Palgrave Communications, https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.1.

[73] Jensen, B. (2002), “Knowledge, Action and Pro-environmental Behaviour”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 8/3, pp. 325-334, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145474.

[10] Khatibi, F. et al. (2021), “Can public awareness, knowledge and engagement improve climate change adaptation policies?”, Discover Sustainability, Vol. 2/1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00024-z.

[154] KNAW (2022), Science Communication by Scientists: Rewarded!, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), https://www.knaw.nl/en/publications/science-communication-scientists-rewarded (accessed on 22 June 2023).

[138] Kormos, C., R. Gifford and E. Brown (2014), “The Influence of Descriptive Social Norm Information on Sustainable Transportation Behavior”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 47/5, pp. 479-501, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513520416.

[88] Lancaster University (n.d.), Morecambe Bay Curriculum, https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/morecambe-bay-curriculum/ (accessed on 5 May 2023).

[75] Lausselet, N. and I. Zosso (2022), “Outdoor and Sustainability Education: How to Link and Implement Them in Teacher Education? An Empirical Perspective”, in Sustainable Development Goals Series, Competences in Education for Sustainable Development, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91055-6_20.

[21] Lawson, D. et al. (2019), Children can foster climate change concern among their parents, Nature Publishing Group, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3.

[117] Lawson, H. and D. Veen (2016), “A planning framework for the five core components”, in Developing Community Schools, Community Learning Centers, Extended-service Schools and Multi-service Schools, Springer.

[74] Lehtonen, A., A. Salonen and H. Cantell (2018), “Climate Change Education: A New Approach for a World of Wicked Problems”, in Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78580-6_11.

[58] Lempert, R. (2019), “Robust Decision Making (RDM)”, in Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2_2.

[139] Liebe, U., J. Gewinner and A. Diekmann (2021), “Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors”, Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 5/5, pp. 576-585, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01070-3.

[42] Lochner, J., A. Stechemesser and L. Wenz (2024), “Climate summits and protests have a strong impact on climate change media coverage in Germany”, Communications Earth & Environment, Vol. 5/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01434-3.

[151] Marinoni, G., H. Van’t Land and T. Jensen (2020), The Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education Around the World: IAU Global Survey Report, International Association of Universities (IAU), Paris, https://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau_covid19_and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2023).

[115] McGrath, J. (2023), “What systematic connections should we have around schools to support the work of teachers?: Global lessons and the potential of ambition loops”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 296, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/77de597c-en.

[77] McInerney, P., J. Smyth and B. Down (2011), “‘Coming to a<i>place</i>near you?’ The politics and possibilities of a critical pedagogy of place-based education”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 39/1, pp. 3-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2010.540894.

[144] McLaren, D. et al. (2024), “Developing a minifesta for effective academic-activist collaboration in the context of the climate emergency”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1384614.

[47] Mehleb, R., G. Kallis and C. Zografos (2021), “A discourse analysis of yellow-vest resistance against carbon taxes”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 40, pp. 382-394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.08.005.

[112] Ministry of Education and Culture (2022), Teacher Education Development Programme 2022–2026, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/164179/TeacherEducationDevelopmentProgramme.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 28 August 2024).

[78] Moely, B., A. Furco and J. Reed (2008), “Charity and Social Change: The Impact of Individual Preferences on Service-Learning Outcomes.”, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Vol. 15/1.

[79] Molderez, I. and E. Fonseca (2018), “The efficacy of real-world experiences and service learning for fostering competences for sustainable development in higher education”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 4397-4410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.062.

[125] Molthan-Hill, P. et al. (2019), “Climate change education for universities: A conceptual framework from an international study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 226, pp. 1092-1101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.053.

[163] Munro, D. (2019), Skills, training and lifelong learning, Public Policy Forum.

[76] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018), How People Learn II, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.17226/24783.

[95] NCCA (2024), Background paper and brief for the development of Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development, https://ncca.ie/media/5920/background-paper-for-lc-casd_0622.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[94] NCCA (2024), Draft Leaving Certificate Climate Action & Sustainable Development specification, https://ncca.ie/media/whbpljhf/consultation-report-on-draft-specification-for-leaving-certificate-casd.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[93] NCCA (2024), Report on the consultation on the draft specification for Leaving Certificate Climate Action and Sustainable Development, https://ncca.ie/media/whbpljhf/consultation-report-on-draft-specification-for-leaving-certificate-casd.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[157] NCCPE (n.d.), National Co-Ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/ (accessed on 22 August 2024).

[53] Nobel Prize Outreach (2024), Scientific thinking for all: A toolkit, https://www.nobelprize.org/scientific-thinking-for-all/ (accessed on 4 September 2024).

[92] Norwegian Education Directorate (2020), Core Curriculum: Interdisciplinary Topics, Norwegian Directorate of Education and Skills, https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/prinsipper-for-laring-utvikling-og-danning/tverrfaglige-temaer/?lang=eng (accessed on 30 May 2023).

[159] Nusche, D. (2016), “Student assessment and its relationship with curriculum, teaching and learning in the twenty-first century”, in The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP , https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921405.

[13] Nusche, D., M. Fuster Rabella and S. Lauterbach (2024), “Rethinking education in the context of climate change: Leverage points for transformative change”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 307, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f14c8a81-en.

[129] Ockwell, D., L. Whitmarsh and S. O’Neill (2009), “Reorienting Climate Change Communication for Effective Mitigation”, Science Communication, Vol. 30/3, pp. 305-327, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008328969.

[122] OECD (2024), Constructing scenarios for the future of teaching in Flanders, Forthcoming.

[91] OECD (2024), “Cultivating the next generation of green and digital innovators: The role of higher education”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 95, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bb6e432e-en.

[34] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

[26] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.

[27] OECD (2024), What Does Child Empowerment Mean Today?: Implications for Education and Well-being, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f80ce38-en.

[82] OECD (2023), “Education and innovation for the digital and green transitions: How higher education can support effective curricula in schools”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1787/5cc2d673-en.

[52] OECD (2023), “Education and innovation for the digital and green transitions: How higher education can support effective curricula in schools”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 81, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3dedf4cb-en.

[87] OECD (2023), “Education and innovation for the digital and green transitions: How higher education can support teachers and school leaders”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 82 OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6407e9f4-en (accessed on 6 August 2024).

[81] OECD (2023), Education Policy Outlook 2023: Empowering All Learners to Go Green, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f5063653-en.

[148] OECD (2023), Global Science Forum - Responsible communication of science to the public - Workshop summary report, https://one.oecd.org/document/DSTI/STP/GSF(2023)12/FINAL/en/pdf (accessed on 22 August 2024).

[32] OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour?: Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behaviour, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.

[96] OECD (2023), “Implementation of Ireland’s Leaving Certificate 2020-2021: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 73, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e36a10b8-en.

[12] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en.

[150] OECD (2023), “Strengthening higher education-school partnerships for green and digital innovation”, OECD Education Spotlights No. 8 OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a77c0d5d-en (accessed on 22 August 2024).

[19] OECD (2022), Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges?, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8abe655c-en.

[23] OECD (2022), Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy: Preparing the Ground for Government Action, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76972a4a-en.

[25] OECD (2021), Education Policy Outlook 2021: Shaping Responsive and Resilient Education in a Changing World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/75e40a16-en.

[103] OECD (2021), “Think green: Education and climate change”, Trends Shaping Education Spotlights, No. 24, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2a9a1cdd-en.

[89] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.

[85] OECD (2019), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en (accessed on 28 July 2023).

[28] OECD (2019), Conceptual Learning Framework: Learning Compass 2030, OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project.

[24] OECD (2019), “OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: STUDENT AGENCY FOR 2030”, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/student-agency/Student_Agency_for_2030_concept_note.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2024).

[37] OECD (2019), SSES Round 1 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/SSES-Round-1-Database.html (accessed on 6 December 2024).

[98] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

[97] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.

[66] Ojala, M. (2016), Young people and global climate change: Emotions, coping, and engagement in everyday life, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-54-5_3.

[104] Okada, A. and P. Gray (2023), “A Climate Change and Sustainability Education Movement: Networks, Open Schooling, and the ‘CARE-KNOW-DO’ Framework”, Sustainability, Vol. 15/3, p. 2356, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032356.

[55] Orgill, M., S. York and J. MacKellar (2019), “Introduction to Systems Thinking for the Chemistry Education Community”, Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 96/12, pp. 2720-2729, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00169.

[18] Otto, I. (ed.) (2022), ““How dare you?”—The normative challenge posed by Fridays for Future”, PLOS Climate, Vol. 1/10, p. e0000053, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000053.

[49] OXFAM (2020), Confronting Carbon Inequality - Putting climate justice at the heart of the COVID-19 recovery, https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2024).

[14] Pereira, T. and T. Freire (2021), Positive Youth Development in the Context of Climate Change: A Systematic Review, Frontiers Media S.A., https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.786119.

[146] Pfrommer, T. et al. (2019), “Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability”, Climatic Change, Vol. 152/1, pp. 67-84, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2362-4.

[140] Piao, X. and S. Managi (2023), “The international role of education in sustainable lifestyles and economic development”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 13/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35173-w.

[9] Pörtner, H. et al. (2022), “Technical Summary”, in H.-O. Pörtner et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.

[39] Price, E. et al. (2022), “Factors associated with nature connectedness in school-aged children”, Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, Vol. 3, p. 100037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100037.

[168] Pye, M. (n.d.), Next Level Climate Thinking and Action: The Student Guide.

[153] RCUK (2020), Engaging Young People with Cutting-Edge Research: A Guide for Researchers and Teachers, Research Council UK, https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/UKRI-16102020-Schools-Policy.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2023).

[17] Roeser, F. et al. (2023), Five major shifts since the Paris Agreement that give hope in a just, Paris-compatible transition, NewClimate Institute, https://newclimate.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/five_major_shifts_since_the_paris_agreement_nov2023.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2024).

[5] Rogelj, J. et al. (2018), “Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development”, in Masson-Delmotte V. et al. (eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate [...].

[158] Rousell, D. and A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles (2019), “A systematic review of climate change education: giving children and young people a ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing climate change”, Children’s Geographies, Vol. 18/2, pp. 191-208, https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614532.

[11] Sato M et al. (2023), Impacts of climate litigation on firm value., Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper 421/Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 397. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

[136] Schubert, C. (2017), “Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 132, pp. 329-342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.009.

[137] Schultz, W., A. Khazian and A. Zaleski (2008), “Using normative social influence to promote conservation among hotel guests”, Social Influence, Vol. 3/1, pp. 4-23, https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510701755614.

[160] Schumer, R. and C. Cook (1999), “The Status of Service-Learning in the United States: Some Facts and Figures”, Service Learning, General, Vol. 144, https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=slceslgen&httpsredir=1&referer= (accessed on 22 August 2024).

[72] Schweizer, S., S. Davis and J. Thompson (2013), “Changing the Conversation about Climate Change: A Theoretical Framework for Place-Based Climate Change Engagement”, Environmental Communication, Vol. 7/1, pp. 42-62, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.753634.

[101] Secretary of the Nordic Council of Ministers and Nordic Council of Ministers (2021), Mapping Education for Sustainability in the Nordic Countries, Nordic Co-Operation, https://www.norden.org/en/publication/mapping-education-sustainability-nordic-countries (accessed on 9 March 2023).

[130] Segerberg, A. (2017), Online and Social Media Campaigns For Climate Change Engagement, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.398.

[64] Seleviciute, A. and A. Sturlyte (2021), With art protest, concerned students raise climate alarm, https://news-decoder.com/with-art-protest-concerned-students-raise-climate-alarm/ (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[147] Setzer J and Higham C (2024), Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2024-snapshot.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2024).

[128] Simac, J., R. Marcus and C. Harper (2019), “Does non-formal education have lasting effects?”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Vol. 51/5, pp. 706-724, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1669011.

[169] Sipos, Y., B. Battisti and K. Grimm (2008), “Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9/1, pp. 68-86, https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810842193.

[119] Song, G. and Z. Wang (2021), “Factors influencing middle school students’ interdisciplinary competence in science education”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 58/7, pp. 1041-1072.

[145] Stuart-Smith, R. et al. (2021), “Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 11/8, pp. 651-655, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01086-7.

[109] Tasiopoulou et al (2022), European Integrated STEM Teaching Framework, European Schoolnet, Brussels.

[63] The Climate Academy (n.d.), The Climate Academy, https://theclimateacademy.org/ (accessed on 17 September 2024).

[111] The Teaching Council (2020), Céim: Standards for Initial Teacher Education, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/2023/08/ceim-standards-for-initial-teacher-education.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2024).

[70] Tilbury, D. and C. Galvin (2022), Input paper: A whole school approach to learning for environmental sustainability, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/input-paper-a-whole-school-approach-to-learning-for-environmental-sustainability (accessed on 4 April 2023).

[102] UBU (2022), PÅ VEJ MOD UDDANNELSER FOR BÆREDYGTIG UDVIKLING, Government of Denmark, https://verdensmaalene.cdn.prismic.io/verdensmaalene/0f0df43a-2e4a-463e-bc4d-5af1330bf793_UBU_rapport_sept22.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2023).

[44] Valentim, A. (2023), Repeated Exposure and Protest Outcomes: How Fridays for Future Protests Influenced Voters, Center for Open Science, https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/m6dpg.

[65] VIBGYOR Group of Schools (2024), , https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5IOm5cPIU4/?igsh=MW53amhtZTA0a3FyNw%3D%3D (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[4] von Stechow, C. et al. (2015), “Integrating Global Climate Change Mitigation Goals with Other Sustainability Objectives: A Synthesis”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 40/1, pp. 363-394, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021113-095626.

[56] Voulvoulis, N. et al. (2022), “Systems thinking as a paradigm shift for sustainability transformation”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 75, p. 102544, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102544.

[120] Wang, H. et al. (2020), “Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed system”, International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 7/1, p. 3, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4.

[167] Werfel, S. (2017), “Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 7/7, pp. 512-515, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3316.

[127] Werquin, P. (2010), Recognising Non-Formal and Informal Learning: Outcomes, Policies and Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264063853-en.

[29] White, P. et al. (2023), Agency in the Anthropocene : Supporting document to the PISA 2025 Science Framework | OECD Education Working Papers | OECD iLibrary, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/agency-in-the-anthropocene_8d3b6cfa-en (accessed on 3 October 2023).

[155] Wissenschaft im Dialog (n.d.), Wissenschaft im Dialog [Science in Dialogue], https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/ (accessed on 22 June 2023).

[15] Wynes, S. and K. Nicholas (2017), “The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 12/7, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.

[48] Youngs, R. (2024), Is There a Silver Lining to Europe’s Climate Change Turmoil?, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/02/is-there-a-silver-lining-to-europes-climate-change-turmoil?lang=en¢er=europe (accessed on 4 September 2024).

[161] Zen, I. (2017), “Exploring the living learning laboratory: An approach to strengthen campus sustainability initiatives by using sustainability science approach”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 18/6, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2015-0154/full/html.

Notes

← 1.  The Anthropocene, or the Age of Humans, is the name proposed by a range of scientists to refer to the geological epoch in which human activity is fundamentally altering Earth systems and life-sustaining processes on the planet, as evidenced in the geological record and directly experienced through the earth’s changing climate.

← 2.  In PISA, a student’s socio-economic background is estimated using the PISA index of economic, social, and cultural status. This composite measure combines financial, social, cultural, and human capital resources available to students into a single score.

← 3.  While offering interesting illustrations, it should be noted that these test items do not offer sufficient information to construct an overall index of students’ environmental science proficiency. An index measuring students' proficiency in environmental sciences will become available as part of the PISA 2025 results, to be published in 2026.

← 4.  More information on students’ behavioural choices and environmental actions will become available with the PISA 2025 results, to be published in 2026.

← 5.  Being “environmentally enthusiastic” is defined as being aware of climate change and global warming, expressing high levels of self-efficacy with respect to their environmental science knowledge and reporting that looking after the environment is important to them.

← 6.  SSES was conducted in 10 cities internationally, of which eight are located in OECD countries.

← 7.  The survey was conducted in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Argentina, Brazil.