In the process of finding solutions for the most important global challenges of today, education and learning are playing a pivotal role. UNESCO’s Global Action Program (GAP) on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (2015-2019) makes a substantial contribution, since it is strengthening the efforts to implement and “scale” ESD in national educational systems globally. The future of international activities on ESD will be promoted in a post-GAP program to 2030 with a closer connection to the Agenda 2030/SDGs. In Germany, in 2017, a National Action Plan (NAP) on ESD was launched which defines fields of action, objectives and specific measures for the structural implementation of ESD in the different educational areas. While the landscape of ESD activities in Germany was long shaped by networks or civil society organizations, the aim is now to reach the political committees and educational structures.

Against this background, it is crucial to understand what scaling of ESD means (Mickelsson, Kronlid & Lotz-Sisitka 2018) and how it can be realized in the multifaceted negotiation and communication processes of all actors involved. The focus of the study is on the modes of coordination between the different state and non-state actors in the various boards of the GAP.The objective of the qualitative study is to better understand the governance process in the respective areas of education (early childhood education, school, vocational training, higher education, non-formal/informal learning and local authorities) in the realization of the NAP. This also includesanalyzing the different formal legitimations, expectations and discursive rooms of actions of the different stakeholders – not least in order to determine where synergy effects can be achieved and where frictions prevent ESD from being implemented in the educational system.

By drawing upon theoretical work within the areas of ESD governance (e.g. Bormann et al., 2016; Kolleck et al. 2017; Læssøe & Mochizuki, 2015), ESD can be described as a social innovation (Bormann, 2013), which is realized in the educational system as a multi-level system with different actors involved. The results of a first qualitative study in the context of the national monitoring of ESD implementation in Germany point out the fact that not only the professional activities of the actors involved influence the diffusion of ESD, but also the respective prevailing structural conditions, systemic goals and logics of the educational areas (Singer-Brodowski, Etzkorn & von Seggern, 2018). The interplay between the social innovation ESD and the characteristics of the educational area are also reflected in the discourses and negotiation processes of the actors involved in the GAP. A high level of participation is an essential element of ESD and at the same time an advantage in the governance of ESD, because the actors develop new cooperation structures in the course of these negotiations on the objectives and content of the open concept of ESD (Bormann & Nikel, 2017). The governance of ESD can be characterized as polycentric (Feinstein et al., 2013), encompassing state actors as well as the participation and engagement of civil society, scientific, and private actors. In contrast, traditionally hierarchically organized forms of governance are part of the state-approved education policy (Kussau & Brüsemeister, 2007). As national governments increasingly rely on the expertise of other organizations and the forms of coordination between state, civil society, science and private organizations, new forms of governance are emerging. The transfer of ESD in Germany now shimmers in between the polycentric and participative network structures one the one side and the hierarchical organized educational policies on the other side. For this reason, scaling ESD seems to be mainly a question of governance.

The study pursues a qualitative research approach because it contributes to a better understanding of systems and social realities (Flick et al., 2009). In the context of the international monitoring discourse on ESD, there is a plea for an expansion of quantitative and standardized monitoring procedures to qualitative approaches to gain contextualized information (Stepanek Lockhart, 2018). To collect the data, focus groups are conducted with the members of the expert forums and other GAP bodies (Morgan, 1997; Schulz et al., 2012). These members are representa-tives from different sectors like science, administration, civil society and private institutions. The data material will be analyzed in a first step through a thematic-structuring content analysis (Kuckartz, 2014). In doing so, content-related aspects/themes are identified, conceptualized and the material systematically described. The process of deriving a category system is an open process and can be realized inductive and/or deductive (Kuckartz, 2014; Schreier 2012). After identifying main themes in the data material, selected interview passages will be analyzed with the documentary analysis (Bohnsack, 2007) in order to generate a typology of governance modes across the educational areas. This enables to elaborate on intentions and explicit evaluations of the actors as well as their practical implicit knowledge beyond intentionality and rationality.

On a scientific level, the study contributes to the understanding of ESD governance processes and the coordination of actions of the various actors. In addition to that it is a research contribution at the national level, because this still represents a young field of research (Bormann et al. 2016). For the practice of education, the results provide insights into cooperation structures in the context of ESD in Germany, which have a direct impact on professional action and the realization of the NAP. The results of the study will be synthesized in recommendations for a more profound and effective implementation of ESD in the German educational system.

Bormann, Inka; Heinrich, Martin; Hamborg, Steffen; Lambrecht, Maike; Nikel, Jutta; Haker, Chris-toph; Brüsemeister, Thomas (2016): Governance von Transferprozessen im Mehrebenensystem. In: Inka Bormann, Steffen Hamborg und Martin Heinrich (Hg.): Governance-Regime des Transfers von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Qualitative Rekonstruktionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS (Educational Governance, Band 34), S. 7–41. Bormann, Inka; Nikel, Jutta (2017): How Education for Sustainable Development is Implemented in Germany. Looking Through the Lens of Educational Governance Theory. In: International Review of Education 63 (6), S. 793–809. DOI: 10.1007/s11159-017-9683-9. Feinstein, Noah Weeth; Jacobi, Pedro Roberto; Lotz-Sisitka, Heila (2013): When Does a Nation-Level Analysis Make Sense? ESD and Educational Governance in Brazil, South Africa, and the USA. In: Environmental Education Research 19 (2), S. 218–230. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.767321. Flick, Uwe; von Kardorff, Ernst; Steinke, Ines (2009): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. 7. Aufl. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. Kolleck, Nina; Jörgens, Helge; Well, Mareike (2017): Levels of Governance in Policy Innovation Cycles in Community Education: The Cases of Education for Sustainable Development and Cli-mate Change Education. In: Sustainability 9 (11), S. 1966. DOI: 10.3390/su9111966. Kussau, Jürgen; Brüsemeister, Thomas (2007): Educational Governance: Zur Analyse der Hand-lungskoordination im Mehrebenensystem der Schule. In: Herbert Altrichter, Thomas Brüsemeis-ter und Jochen Wissinger (Hg.): Educational Governance. Handlungskoordination und Steuerung im Bildungssystem. 1. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden (Educational Governance, 1), S. 15–54. Læssøe, Jeppe; Mochizuki, Yoko (2015): Recent Trends in National Policy on Education for Sustaina-ble Development and Climate Change Education. In: Journal of Education for Sustainable 9 (1), S. 27–43. DOI: 10.1177/0973408215569112. Mickelsson, Martin; Kronlid, David O.; Lotz-Sisitka, Heila (2018): Consider the Unexpected: Scaling ESD as a Matter of Learning. In: Environmental Education Research 4 (142), S. 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1429572. Morgan, David L. (1997): Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Schulz, Marlen; Mack, Birgit; Renn, Ortwin (2012): Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft. Wies-baden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Singer-Brodowski, Mandy; Etzkorn, Nadine; von Seggern, Janne (2019): One Transformation Path Does Not Fit All – Insights into the Diffusion Processes of Education for Sustainable Develop-ment in Different Educational Areas in Germany. Sustainability 11 (1), 269. Stepanek Lockhart, Ashley (2018): Monitoring ESD: Lessons Learned and Ways forward. Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development. In: Alexander Leicht, Julia Heiss und Won Jung Byun (Hg.): Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development, S. 215–231.