Loorbach’s (2007) concept of transition management, defined as a multi-actor process, supports the idea that sustainability transitions involve multiple levels of responsibility, with individuals, governments, businesses, and knowledge institutions playing interconnected roles. Since all these actors influence societal change in some way, their activities must necessarily be participatory (Loorbach, 2007, p. 88).  Bos et al. (2013) expand on this by identifying individual and collective actors as participants in purposive actions to prevent or generate change within. Salovaara and Hagolani-Albov (2024) further contribute by demonstrating that addressing people as both causes and sources of sustainability issues often lead to behaviours of othering and externalisation. However, this multi-level perspective is not without its critiques. Fischer and Newig (2016) highlight shortcomings in its application, particularly in its insufficient consideration of agency and the roles of individual actors in driving change (p. 2). For example, Farla et al. (2012) indicate that individuals show up as actors in transition processes as ‘independent’ players or as members of an organisation, able to pursue strategies with leeway in their decision-making but also constrained by institutional structures in which they are embedded (p.994). Although individuals trying to change a system from within are considered important in their sustainability transition model, they show more consideration to policymakers and public authorities, firms, social movements, civil society and, consumers, experts and research organisations. 

The role of individuals becomes particularly significant when considering behaviours that directly support sustainability. Kent (2009) argues that there is growing emphasis on recognising individuals—both as citizens and consumers—as contributors to climate change and responsible agents in its mitigation. However, he highlights that, given the urgency of the climate crisis, relying solely on individual action may be insufficient or inefficient (p. 134). Torelli (2020) echoes this concern, stating that while climate change has been widely discussed, this "talking" has not translated into tangible and practical results in terms of mitigation or adaptation efforts (p. 724). This gap may stem from the complexity of behavioural changes required, which, according to Fischer et al. (2012) include reforming formal institutions, strengthening civil society, enhancing citizen engagement, curbing consumption and population growth, addressing social justice issues, and reassessing values and belief systems. Such demands highlight the multi-faceted challenges of achieving meaningful progress in sustainability efforts.

With this framework in mind, we intend to we explore how participants in our qualitative study perceive and negotiate their role in tackling sustainability challenges and examine whether any perceived responsibility translates into concrete action and, if not, what deters them. Aligned with this, our research objectives are:

1. To identify different types of responsibility that students perceive;

2. To examine students' attitudes towards these types of responsibilities;

3. To analyse the actions students have taken or plan to take in support of sustainability transitions;

4. To identify key barriers and enablers influencing their ability to take concrete action;

5. To discuss the role of universities in initiating/ supporting these actions. 

This study, organised at the University of Bucharest with the participation of students, builds on existing literature on sustainability transitions and multi-level responsibility, looking to contribute to the ongoing discourse on how sustainability challenges can be addressed more effectively. Furthermore, as higher education institutions can and have to play an essential role in addressing sustainability issues, both as education and research establishments but also in line with their academic, social responsibility (Dima & All, 2013), understanding students' perceptions and intentions related to addressing sustainability could be valuable in tailoring their policies. 

This study included a two-phase research design. Participants first joined a Climate Fresk Workshop (Fresque du Climat) a collaborative and interactive workshop designed to enhance participants' understanding of climate change. This workshop is based on scientific reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and helped participants connect climate change's causes, mechanisms, and consequences through a structured card game with a creative phase at the end. It aims to empower participants by encouraging learning, action-oriented thinking and teamwork. In our research framework, we used it to increase awareness among participants and sensitivity on the subject to prepare them for the discussion during the second phase. Each workshop lasted about 90 minutes and was followed by a debriefing discussion, which transitioned towards the focus group. Each focus group lasted for about 45 minutes and included questions related to participants’ experiences during the workshop, their vision of responsibility and actions to address sustainability issues, the perceived effectiveness of their actions, and the role of educational institutions in addressing these challenges. After being previously approved by the Research Ethical Committee at our university, we conducted six iterations of the workshops followed by five focus groups (two workshops were carried-out in parallel). Participants were students enrolled in a study program at the University of Bucharest. No previous expertise or knowledge on the topic was required. The focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed. Then, the data were imported into qualitative analysis software to facilitate systematic coding and organisation. An initial set of codes based on literature was used for the coding process, but some codes emerged during the process. Since there were two researchers working on this study, a phase of reconciliation was included that ended in grouping codes into broader categories and patterns. Finally, a thematic analysis was conducted to interpret the findings in relation to the study’s objectives.

The thematic analysis of participants' positions allowed us to identify four distinct layers of responsibility in how students perceive their role in addressing sustainability challenges: Individual responsibility –their actions, such as reducing energy consumption, minimising waste, or making more sustainable lifestyle choices. Collective responsibility –group and community efforts, with an accent on people coming together to advocate/ implement change, support sustainable initiatives, and influence policies. Institutional responsibility is the primary level where systemic change can be generated, sustained, and even imposed. At this level, participants are most often associated with governments and institutions, with the power to create policies, enact laws, and allocate resources. Due to their expertise, HEIs could assume this role. Global responsibility – A more abstract and less defined perspective in which participants view a shared responsibility of humanity, acknowledging that environmental challenges result from human (in)activity. We also identified a critical gap in participants' perceptions. While they recognised that global responsibility is shared across humanity, they felt their agency to implement change was strongest at the individual level. However, many indicated they struggled to maintain motivation for personal actions and behaviours and mistrusted their ability to make a difference due to self-reported inefficacy and social and structural barriers (discouragement from peers, lack of public commitment or institutional support). This further highlights a tension between awareness and action, where participants acknowledge their role but often feel disempowered or overwhelmed in front of the problem. In this framework, educational institutions have a role in supporting participants both by encouraging their behaviours and by creating a collaborative environment.

Bos, J. J., Brown, R. R., & Farrelly, M. A. (2013). A design framework for creating social learning situations. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 398-412. Dima, A. M., Vasilache, S., Ghinea, V., & Agoston, S. (2013). A model of academic social responsability. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 9(38), 23-43. Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., & Coenen, L. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological forecasting and social change, 79(6), 991-998. Fischer, J., Dyball, R., Fazey, I., Gross, C., Dovers, S., Ehrlich, P. R., ... & Borden, R. J. (2012). Human behavior and sustainability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(3), 153-160. Fischer, L. B., & Newig, J. (2016). Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability, 8(5), 476. Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books. Kent, J. (2009). Individualized responsibility and climate change:'If climate protection becomes everyone's responsibility, does it end up being no-one's?'. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(3), 132-149. Salovaara, J. J., & Hagolani-Albov, S. E. (2024). Sustainability agency in unsustainable structures: rhetoric of a capable transformative individual. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 138. Torelli, R. (2021). Sustainability, responsibility and ethics: different concepts for a single path. Social Responsibility Journal, 17(5), 719-739.