Search

Scholars and professionals committed to fostering sustainable development have urged a re-examination of the curriculum and restructuring of research in engineering-focused institutions of higher learning. This article will address the following themes and questions: How can multi- and trans-disciplinary teaching and research coexist in a meaningful way in today's university structures? Does education relevant to sustainable development require its own protected incubating environment to survive, or will it otherwise be gobbled up and marginalized by attempting to instil it throughout the traditional curriculum? What roles can national and EU governments have in accelerating the needed changes? How can it be made safe for courageous students to take educational paths different from traditional tracks, even if technical options exist to do so? What can one learn from comparative analysis of universities in different nations and environments? (Contains 2 figures, 2 tables, and 2 notes.)

Although I am not an engineer, my appointment as professor of technology and policy is in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's School of Engineering. As a scientist trained in economics [...]

Strategic niche management and transition management have been promoted as useful avenues to pursue in order to achieve both specific product or process changes and system transformation by focusing on technology development through evolutionary and co-evolutionary processes, guided by government and relevant stakeholders. However, these processes are acknowledged to require decades to achieve their intended changes, a timeframe that is too long to adequately address many of the environmental and social issues many industrialized and industrializing nations are facing. An approach that involves incumbents and does not consider targets that look beyond reasonably foreseeable technology is likely to advance a model where incumbents evolve rather than being replaced or displaced . On the other hand, approaches that focus on creating new entrants could nurture niche development or deployment of disruptive technologies, but those technologies may only be marginally better than the technologies they replace. Either approach may take a long time to achieve their goals. Sustainable development requires both radical disruptive technological and institutional changes, the latter including stringent regulation, the integration of disparate goals, and changes in incentives to enable new voices to contribute to new systems and solutions. This paper outlines options for a strong governmental role in setting future sustainability goals and the pathways for achieving them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper argues that a sustainable industrial system depends not only on good environmental and public health outcomes, but also on adequate employment and earning capacity in a well-functioning and equitable economic system. These concerns are likely to dominate future national political debates, requiring responses that increase the earning capacity of individuals through changes in the nature of work and employment, and in the ownership of productive capital. Making the economy greener, while certainly necessary for long-term economic and societal survival, does not necessarily mean more and better paying jobs on a large enough scale to make serious progress to reducing unemployment and underemployment. At present, national and global reforms are focused on improving the financial system, which is not synonymous with reforming the economic system or improving the economic status of individual citizens. This paper discusses specific policies and initiatives that need to be considered to ensure sustainable employment and livelihoods. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article challenges certain tenets of the theories of reflexive law and ecological modernization. Although farsighted prevention-oriented and structural changes are needed, some proponents of these theories argue that the very industries and firms that create environmental problems can through continuous institutional learning, the application of life-cycle analysis, dialogue and networks with stakeholders, and implementation of “environmental management systems” be transformed into sustainable industries and firms. Although useful, these reforms are insufficient. It is not marginal or incremental changes that are needed for sustainability but rather major product, process, and system transformations—often beyond the capacity of the dominant industries and firms. This article also questions the alleged failure of regulation to stimulate needed technological changes and identifies the conditions under which innovation for sustainability can occur Finally, it discusses differences in needed policies for industrialized and developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]