Perspectives on education about or for “the environment” have evolved, generating significant epistemological debates and discussions. Initially, the field consolidated under the term environmental education, which, according to authors such as Sauvè (2005) and Layrargues, and Lima (2014), can be interpreted and practiced in multiple ways, varying between 6 and 14 different approaches.  Subsequently, the concept of education for sustainable development (ESD) emerged, driven by the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992) and strengthened during the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014) promoted by UNESCO. This approach broadened the perspective to include social, economic, and cultural dimensions, integrating sustainability as a transversal axis in educational systems. However, this perspective has also generated debates, especially in Latin America, where there is some ideological resistance, as ESD has been criticized for being aligned with capitalist and neoliberal interests, prioritizing economic growth over social and environmental equity (Sauvè, 1999).

 In this context, alternatives have been proposed to resolve these tensions. For example, network 30 from the European Educational Research Association (EERA) suggests using more inclusive terms, such as environmental and sustainable education, which recognize the need to address both ecological problems and socioeconomic aspects from an integrated perspective. This proposal seeks to overcome ideological divisions and create a common framework that facilitates interdisciplinary dialogue and international cooperation. 

A relevant aspect within the epistemological struggles in the field of environmental and sustainable education (ESE) is its recognition as an autonomous research field, given that it has historically been linked to science education, influenced by ecologist and conservationist approaches. According to Mejía-Cáceres (2019), there are two types of relationships between ESE and sciences education (SE): the relationship of inclusion and the relationship of association. In the relationship of inclusion, ESE is considered part of SE, mainly seeking dissemination and scientific literacy by using socio-environmental topics within educational processes and specific disciplines. In this view, SE is a practical field for ESE. On the other hand, the relationship of association promotes the independence of both fields, where ESE and SE interact as distinct but complementary fields, with the goal of fostering citizenship through the integration of scientific content in its socio-environmental context and the use of ethical and political principles. 

In this context, doctoral programs play a crucial role in the evolution of ESE as an autonomous research field by integrating both traditional and more critical and contemporary approaches. These programs not only contribute to the consolidation of a disciplinary field, but they also facilitate interdisciplinary interaction and international cooperation, allowing future scholars, researchers, and professionals in the field to develop innovative approaches that can challenge dominant structures and contribute to the creation of more equitable and sustainable societies. 

ESE continues to evolve, it is increasingly critical to emphasize the role of ESE in higher education at large. ESE is not just an academic pursuit; it plays a central role in addressing the global environmental challenges we face today. ESE bridges the gap between policy and practice, preparing students to understand complex global issues while equipping them with the necessary skills to influence real-world solutions. 

Our research question, How are universities worldwide addressing research agendas according to their understanding of sustainability and institutional pathways? involves two major areas of analysis. The first part focuses on identifying the sustainability approaches and institutional structures that universities use to generate research, while the second part examines their doctoral programs. In this article, we concentrate on the first objective. Understanding how universities define sustainability is crucial for evaluating whether their programs adopt a broad, inclusive view that extends beyond traditional environmental protection to encompass social  justice, and well-being. 

The research methodology for this study is structured around three distinct phases, each focusing on a critical aspect of sustainability programs in higher education institutions. In this article, we focus on the first two phases of analysis. Here's an explanation of each phase: 1. Identify and Select Universities In the first phase, the study aimed to identify universities around the world with established sustainability programs. To ensure a broad, representative sample, universities were selected based on specific inclusion criteria. Key among these was the presence of doctoral programs dedicated to sustainability or related interdisciplinary fields. The universities were initially chosen from the QS World University Rankings, ensuring academic quality and global recognition. To ensure geographic diversity, institutions were categorized by continent. Furthermore, additional universities were identified through keyword searches to capture institutions that might not have been listed in the rankings but still offered relevant doctoral programs. This process ensured a comprehensive selection of universities from all continents, offering a broad view of how sustainability education is approached globally. 2. Second Analysis: Sustainability Definition and Institutional Organization The second phase focuses on analyzing how each university defines sustainability and organizes its institutional framework to address sustainability challenges. This step involves looking into the university's official documents, websites, research portals, and sustainability initiatives to understand their vision and commitment to sustainability. The analysis examines how sustainability is framed within the university, identifying key concepts and areas of focus. This phase also looks at how sustainability is integrated into the institutional structure, such as through specialized research centers, interdisciplinary programs, or partnerships with external stakeholders. By studying this, we gain insight into the university’s overarching sustainability philosophy and its organizational commitment to addressing global sustainability challenges. 3. Third Analysis: Their Doctoral Program Curriculum The third phase focuses on examining the doctoral programs themselves, assessing their curriculum structure and the specific courses offered in relation to sustainability. This phase seeks to determine whether the programs are designed to foster interdisciplinary learning and research, whether they integrate sustainability across multiple disciplines, and whether they reflect the latest global sustainability challenges. The analysis delves into course offerings, research fields, themes, and any specific focus areas within sustainability (e.g., climate change, social equity, sustainable development). It also explores how these programs prepare doctoral students to engage in sustainability research and contribute to addressing global sustainability issues. We conducted a content analysis by creating a comparative matrix.

Some notions found in sustainability are: 1. From a traditional perspective, based on the UNESCO framework and the SDGs. This traditional view remains central to many institutions today, including UFRJ, NTU, Tsinghua University, Sunway University, Monash University, the University of the Witwatersrand, and Stellenbosch University; 2. As a process that implies understanding and acknowledging past impacts (University of Michigan) and the integration of sustainable practices into the economy (University of Cambridge); 3. As a holistic approach (ASU); 4. Sustainability as a field (USP); 5. Sustainability as system-based (Universidad Autónoma de Occidente); 6. Lack of sustainability definitions (Peking University, Columbia University, University of Oxford, The British University of Dubai, UNSW, ANU, University of Cape Town, University of Campinas, and the University of Pretoria). In terms of institutional organization, three main approaches emerge: 1. Traditional Organization: Faculties and Departments, where sustainability efforts were primarily organized within existing academic. 2. Specialized Institutes and Centers: a response to Complexity, where universities have established dedicated centers to tackle sustainability challenges from a more integrated perspective. 3. Schools and Nuclei: The Rise of Dedicated Sustainability Units, where universities have created entire schools or departments specifically focused on sustainability, such as ASU’s School of Sustainability or the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability. Conclusion In conclusion, sustainability’s evolving definition across universities highlights its complexity and the necessity for interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing global challenges. As universities increasingly adopt holistic, process-based, and systems-oriented approaches to sustainability, their organizational structures are also evolving. The creation of specialized institutes and programs reflects an institutional shift that aligns with the growing demand for integrated, collaborative, and innovative solutions to sustainability problems. Universities are no longer just teaching sustainable practices but fostering critical thinking and interdisciplinary research to prepare future generations to address the interconnected sustainability issues of the future.

Abo-Khalil, A, (2024). Integrating sustainability into higher education challenges and opportunities for universities worldwide. Heliyon, 10 (9).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29946 Bonnet, M. (2021). Environmental consciousness, nature, and the philosophy of education: ecologising education. London: earthscan from Routledge. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press. D’Este, P.; Robinson-García, N. (2023).Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields. Research Policy, 52 (2) Didham, R.; Fujii H.; Torkar,G. (2024). Exploring Interdisciplinary Approaches to Education for Sustainable Development. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education. 8(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.5877 Friends of the Earth International (1969). Friends of the Earth: An International Network for Environmental Justice. Granados-Sánchez, J., Wals, A. E. J., Ferrer-Balas, D., Waas, T., Imaz, M., Nortier, S., Svanström, M., Van’t Land, H., & Arriaga, G. (2015). Sustainability in higher education: Moving from understanding to action, breaking barriers for transformation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 9(2), 200-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215579878 Berejnoi Bejarano, E., Rodriguez, N., Gibbons, L., Sykes, C., Morrison, B.A., Tekola, S., Gabriele, A., Fastiggi, M., and Cloutier,. (2019). Integrating Inner and External Dimensions for Holistic Sustainability. In: Adapon, R.; Kurissery S. (2019). Intellectual, Scientific and Educational Influences in Sustainability Research. IGI Global. Casedevall A.; Fang, F.. Field Science -the Nature and Utility of Scientific Fields. (2015). mBio 6 (5). Darden L. (1978). Discoveries and the emergence of new fields in science. In Asquith PD., Hacking I (ed), PSA: proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI. Jacob J. (2015). Interdisciplinary trends in higher education. Palgrave Commun 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.1 Kuhn, TS (1970). The Structure of scientific revolution., 2nd (enlarged) edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Layrargues P.P;, Lima, G.;F.;C. (2011). Mapeando as macro-tendências político-pedagógicas da educação ambiental contemporânea no Brasil. Ambiente & Sociedade. 17 (1), p. 23-40. Leal Filho, W. (2022). Pursuing Sustainable Development Across Disciplines. in: W. Leal Filho and C. R. Portela de Vasconcelos (eds.), Handbook of Best Practices in Sustainable Development at University Level, World Sustainability Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04764-0_27 Mejía-Cáceres, M. A. (2019). De las estructuras sociales a los eventos comunicativos: Formación inicial de profesores de ciencias y educación ambiental en el contexto sociopolitico colombiano [Disertation theses]. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16604.33922