Teaching for tomorrow: a qualitative exploration of ESD in initial teacher education across five European universities

Education for sustainable development (ESD) is globally recognised as a transformative approach to equip individuals with the knowledge, skills and values needed to address complex sustainability challenges (Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). International frameworks, including those from UNESCO and the European Union, call for embedding sustainability competences in initial teacher education (ITE) to meet global goals (UNECE, 2005, 2012, 2022a, 2022b; UNESCO, 2017); there is “international significance attached to integrating sustainability into the education of young people and, therefore, into the education of student teachers” (Evans et al., 2017, p. 405). Various existing frameworks, including UNESCO’s ESD for 2030 roadmap and the United Nations (2020) – particularly Target 4.7 – underscore the role of education in equipping learners with the knowledge, skills and values needed to promote sustainable futures (United Nations, n.d.). Yet, the policy-practice gap remains a global challenge (Beasy et al., 2024; Cuesta-Claros et al., 2023; Davis and Davis, 2021; del Carmen Pegalajar-Palomino et al., 2021; Eames, 2022; Evans et al., 2021).

Despite ongoing demands and expectations to incorporate ESD into teacher education programs, the extent of its integration into initial teacher training is still unclear, has been given insufficient attention (Cantó et al., 2025; Mulà and Tilbury, 2023) and remains an area requiring further investigation (Beasy et al., 2024; Imara and Altinay, 2021). Central to this study is the lived experience of initial teacher educators, the importance of which is underscored by Almeida et al. (2018) who observe:

Through a small-scale qualitative study across five European universities, this research explores current practices in embedding ESD in ITE, highlighting both systemic and pedagogical aspects, aiming to address the following research questions:

Without consistent integration of ESD in teacher education, future teachers may be unprepared to engage students with sustainability challenges. Drawing on teacher educators’ experiences, this study identifies key barriers and opportunities within institutional settings, contributing to ongoing global efforts to bridge the gap between policy and practice.

This literature review contextualises some of the systemic, pedagogical and personal dimensions shaping ESD implementation as follows:

• institutional opportunities and barriers to integration;

• teaching and learning for ESD; and

• educators as change agents.

Although ESD is widely recognised as important to ITE, its integration is often fragmented and inconsistent (Evans et al., 2017). Incorporating ESD competencies into ITE is difficult, as curricula tend to be discipline-specific (Ceulemans and De Prins, 2010). University programs often operate within rigid structures, and credit allocation systems such as the European Credit and Accumulation System (ECTS) limit flexibility, forcing sustainability content to compete with established subjects.

Cultural resistance from teaching staff and administrators, grounded in entrenched routines and values, can play a role in obstructing systematic embedding of sustainability education (Hindley, 2022; Sreerekha, 2025). Research suggests that overcoming these barriers often depends on a coordinated, systems-approach of institution-wide reforms rather than relying solely on the initiative of individual educators (Evans et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2006, 2007; Sreerekha, 2025).

According to Ferreira et al., mainstreaming is a way to achieve meaningful integration at systems level. Mainstreaming embeds ESD into the core structures of an institution, including its values, policies, curriculum and teaching practices (Ferreira et al., 2006, 2007, 2009). Cuesta-Claros et al. (2023) described integration as occurring at different levels: accommodative (fitting ESD into existing structures), reformative (modifying those structures) and transformative (shifting perspectives and systems). At a European level, approaches to ESD integration vary across countries – for example, Sweden embeds ESD throughout the curriculum (reformative to transformative), while in Turkey it is taught as a standalone subject (accommodative) (Eurydice, 2024). This study’s multi-country qualitative approach offers some insight into how these challenges unfold in other European contexts.

Effective implementation of ESD requires more than structural accommodation – it demands new ways of teaching and learning. The European Sustainability Competencies Framework highlights a shift away from a strong focus on subject-specific knowledge, promoting instead an approach to teaching that emphasises values, complexity, potential for change and action, through approaches that allow for interdisciplinary learning (Bianchi et al., 2022). This integrative approach is crucial for ESD, which aims to link classroom learning to students’ daily lives and pressing societal challenges (Agbedahin, 2019; Holfelder, 2019).

Despite growing acknowledgment of ESD’s importance, fostering meaningful engagement through teaching and learning in ITE remains challenging. ESD requires approaches that go beyond content delivery and subject boundaries, encouraging educators to model sustainability as a way of thinking and teaching across all aspects of professional practice (Beasy et al., 2024). Furthermore, fragmented curriculum integration, insufficient teacher training, limited institutional support, faculty resistance, assessment complexities and inconsistent implementation contribute to its marginalisation (Evans et al., 2017; Lorente-Echeverría et al., 2022; Wolff et al., 2022). Such challenges are symptomatic of what Kurylo et al. (2025, p. 50) describe as a “mismatch between society’s need for achieving SDGs and the actual contribution of universities.” Furthermore, because sustainability challenges are embedded in distinct physical, historical and socio-cultural contexts, effective approaches to teaching and learning must be responsive to place and time, (Sandri and Holdsworth, 2022) and incorporate diverse worldviews and disciplinary perspectives (Lozano et al., 2017).

The effective integration of ESD is central to fostering transformative learning. As part of a broader set of sustainability competences (Lozano et al., 2017), transformative learning promotes mindset shifts (Abulibdeh et al., 2024; Dweck, 2006; Wals, 2011), nurtures critical reflexivity, enhances learner autonomy and empowers both individual and collective agency (Gey et al., 2022). Rather than being treated as a discrete subject, ESD functions as a transdisciplinary approach that encourages collaborative engagement with socio-environmental issues – requiring pedagogical strategies that differ from traditional, discipline-based models (Pérez-Martín and Esquivel-Martín, 2024). This pedagogical reorientation underscores the need for educators capable of navigating – and enacting – transformative teaching practices.

Educators play a central role in driving change both within educational institutions and society more broadly (Abulibdeh et al., 2024; Beasy et al., 2024; Ferreira et al., 2007; Lorente-Echeverría et al., 2022). However, fulfilling this role effectively requires certain competencies – both environmental literacy and a positive orientation towards sustainability (Vidal and Kuckuck, 2025; Vukelić, 2022) as well as proficiency in transformative approaches to teaching and learning (Frisk and Larson, 2011; Lozano et al., 2017). Pedagogically, the shift towards reflexive, learner-centred and action-oriented teaching required by ESD challenges many teacher educators who are accustomed to traditional content delivery (Mulà and Tilbury, 2023; Sreerekha, 2025). Navigating this pedagogical shift presents ongoing challenges for educators (Evans et al., 2017; Lozano et al., 2017; Saari et al., 2024; Sreerekha, 2025).

Evidence shows that pre-service teachers who receive targeted ESD training demonstrate improved attitudes and enhanced capabilities to integrate sustainability into their teaching practices, often reflecting exposure to specific ESD-focused pedagogies during their training (Abulibdeh et al., 2024; Anyolo et al., 2018; Fuertes-Camacho et al., 2019; Vidal and Kuckuck, 2025). By helping future educators make explicit connections between personal values, professional responsibilities, social dynamics and structural sustainability challenges, ESD facilitates deeper understanding and positive attitude shifts (Brandt et al., 2021; Vukelić, 2022).

Therefore, there is a critical need to embed ESD systematically in teacher education, aligning with UNESCO (2023)’s SDG Target 4.7. Nonetheless, the aspiration for educators to act as effective change agents is often hampered by limited institutional support and competing demands on their time, with research highlighting heavy workloads and organisational barriers as significant constraints to participation in sustainability-focused professional development (Evans et al., 2017; Sreerekha, 2025). While prior research has documented attitudinal shifts, less is known about how institutional and cultural barriers concretely impact educators’ capacity to enact change within diverse European ITE settings (Vidal and Kuckuck, 2025).

While these three thematic areas are widely acknowledged in the literature, what remains underexplored is how teacher educators themselves navigate these challenges within their institutional settings, particularly across diverse educational systems. This study aims to contribute by investigating how ESD is currently realised in ITE across five European universities, guided by the perspectives of those directly involved in programme delivery.

This study adopted a multi-step qualitative approach to explore the practical implementation of national ESD commitments in Germany, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Finland. By combining a policy review with empirical data from university educators, the research design facilitated a nuanced understanding of how policy aspirations align or diverge from institutional realities during ESD integration.

The authors used purposive sampling, a qualitative sampling method where participants are deliberately selected based on their knowledge and relevance to the research topic (Robinson, 2023), to recruit participants from European institutions involved in the EU-Erasmus project TESTEd (Towards a European Syllabus in Teacher Education), launched in 2022. TESTEd is a collaborative initiative that brings together universities, schools and education stakeholders across Europe to tackle global educational challenges by developing a standardised European approach to teacher education. The project aims to create a pan-European syllabus focusing on cross-cutting themes such as ESD, with the goal of bridging diverse national education systems and fostering a more cohesive educational landscape across the continent (TESTEd Consortium, 2024). University-based educators – program coordinators, lecturers and professors – with expertise in ESD within their ITE programmes were recruited by project partners. Six participants took part in the study (one from Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and two from Germany) (see Table 1 for details).

Ethical approval (Nr. EPSE-2023–012) was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Professional School of Education, Ruhr University Bochum. Standard protocols for consent (written and verbal, right to withdraw) and data storage were followed. Participants received the opportunity to review the final draft of the article for accuracy.

The study began with a policy review to systematically examine key documents from online databases and institutional websites to identify and map central ideas, trends and priorities relevant to the research aims (presented in Table 2 in the Results section). It focused on the broader policy landscape and served to contextualise the study.

The second author conducted interviews between March and June 2024, to explore participants’ experiences and perspectives on ESD integration, challenges and opportunities, the inclusion of student voices and educator training. Each interview took place via Microsoft Teams, which automatically recorded and transcribed the sessions; the transcripts were then checked and edited by all authors and the participants. Translators provided real-time support during interviews as needed (Germany and Portugal) and translated one Spanish interview after transcription.

The authors analysed the data using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013, 2022) six-phase framework: familiarising with the data, generating initial codes, identifying themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and producing the report. To allow for data-driven theme generation, the authors applied an inductive coding strategy that avoided predefined theoretical frameworks. The third author, who had no prior involvement in the interviews, independently coded the transcripts using Microsoft Word and Excel, applying Braun and Clarke’s guidelines.

All authors collaboratively compared and refined the initial codes through an iterative and recursive process. The analysis maintained a semantic focus by interpreting the data through participants’ own words and observable meanings, rather than latent assumptions (Braun and Clarke, 2022). The authors addressed divergent patterns by returning to the data and holding collaborative coding meetings to ensure accurate representation of participants’ lived experiences. They supported theme development through thematic maps and matrix analyses, which visualised relationships among codes, sub-themes and overarching themes. Throughout the process, the authors refined the themes to align with the research questions and the study’s aim of generating context-rich, comparative insights into ESD integration.

While the research team brings professional experience in ESD and teacher education, they actively worked to maintain analytical neutrality throughout the study. The team held regular discussions to critically reflect on subjectivity, reflexivity and positionality to “own [their] perspectives” (Elliott et al., 1999) and ensure a rich interpretation of the data (Braun and Clarke, 2022).

The Eurydice report (Eurydice, 2024) examined ITE programmes against five key outcomes for sustainability learning. Of the five countries participating in this study, only Germany incorporated all five outcomes across all grade levels of ITE instruction. A summary of these results is presented in Table 2. Below is a broad overview of each nation’s policy context and implementation status.

Germany operates under a federal system where the Federal Ministry of Education and Research provides guidance, while state-level authorities determine curriculum, teacher qualifications and school organisation. A teacher competence framework for sustainability was established in 2007 (Eurydice, 2024), yet Brock and Grund (2018) found limited integration of ESD within ITE curricula. The 2017 National Action Plan on ESD aims to structurally embed sustainability across all levels by 2030 (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). However, implementation varies by state: some adopt ESD as a cross-disciplinary principle with detailed guidelines, while others primarily incorporate it into subjects like biology or geography (Holst et al., 2020). More consistent implementation across states will be critical for progress (Müller et al., 2021).

Finland’s Teacher Education Development Programme 2022–2026 emphasises “sustainability expertise” and the ability to critically navigate complex challenges (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2022). Sustainability-related courses and minor studies are available but mostly optional (Jónsson et al., 2021; Saari et al., 2024). Constraints like rigid study plans limit participation. In 2021, the Ministry launched a large climate and sustainability education project including guidance, coaching and network creation (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2021). However, Wolff et al. (2022) critique the policy for lacking transformative approaches and sustainability-related values. Mykrä (2023) observed limited action-based projects despite progress in coverage.

In Portugal, the Ministry of Education oversees the education system (Eurydice, 2024) where The environmental education framework outlines eight sustainability themes, with project-based learning commonly used to integrate citizenship and sustainability goals (Duarte et al., 2023). However, national teacher qualifications mandate cultural, social and ethical training but do not specify sustainability objectives in ITE (Eurydice, 2024). Research identifies inconsistent framework application and limited government commitment at the university level (Farinha et al., 2018; João et al., 2022). Although continuing professional development (CPD) courses exist, sustainability is less reflected in higher education curricula, with lecturers often favouring external activities over integrating ESD into courses (Leal et al., 2024).

Spain has reformed its education system (2020) to strengthen ESD integration, supported by a National Action Plan on Environmental Education 2021–2025 ( MITECO, 2020). Teacher candidates, particularly in science subjects, are expected to develop sustainability competences (Eurydice, 2024). Yet Lorente-Echeverría and colleagues highlight the need for curriculum revision to move beyond “traditional and mechanistic” approaches (Lorente-Echeverría et al., 2022, p. 2), advocating for competency-based models incorporating critical and systems thinking and participatory action.

Ireland shows strong policy commitment with the “ESD to 2030” national strategy and an implementation roadmap launched in 2022 (Government of Ireland, 2022). All ITE programmes must embed ESD, including a Global Citizenship Education module (Teaching Council, 2020). Youth voices actively shape policy (UNESCO, 2024). Despite these frameworks, gaps between policy and practice remain, with challenges in educator preparedness and inconsistent implementation highlighted by professional bodies (INTO, 2021; IPPN, 2023). A longitudinal study commissioned through 2030 aims to track early career teachers to inform policy and practice (Teaching Council, 2024).

Overall, while the policy frameworks investigated demonstrate strong ambitions for ESD, evidence suggests that more change is needed to prepare new teachers effectively across these countries.

The lived experiences of the interviewees across the five participating European universities revealed a complex picture, often characterised by a significant gap between stated national policy ambitions and the day-to-day realities described by educators. These are presented under 3 thematic headings as follows.

In several institutions, particularly in Ireland and Finland, ESD is primarily integrated implicitly. As Claire (Ireland) described, it is often “embedded in pedagogy by lectures in history and geography and in modules on subjects like intercultural education and multiculturalism,” rather than being taught explicitly. Similarly, Ella (Finland) confirmed that “the pre-service teacher training programme does not mandate specific courses on ESD.” While sustainability is discussed within the curriculum, it lacks a structured framework, with relevant topics appearing somewhat unstructured within science courses, “where topics like recycling, energy production, and their real-world glocal implications are covered.” Both Claire and Ella noted that this implicit approach often coexists with ad hoc inclusion dependent on lecturer interest.

Explicit ESD provision, where it exists, tends to be optional. The Spanish university offers a dedicated 20-h ESD course to all students enrolled in the Masters of Education programme, yet Alejandra confirmed its optional status means not all students participate. Likewise, the German university provides an optional certificate pathway, but Carl acknowledged “there is still a chance that students will not come into contact with sustainability, because they can avoid it if they want to.” Finland’s optional sustainability minor suffers from very low enrolment (<5%), hampered by already “tight study plan[s],” as Ella reported, limiting student uptake of individual elective courses.

The Portuguese context appears even less structured. Francisco stated plainly: “We don’t have a course related specifically to [ESD], and it’s not a unit that is being intentionally included in different courses.” Instead, they rely on student interest within flexible project-based learning rather than intentional course design. This overall landscape suggests that systematic, comprehensive ESD integration ensuring all pre-service teachers gain necessary competences is currently lacking in most of these contexts.

The reasons behind this fragmented and often peripheral status of ESD directly address the second research question regarding perceived obstacles to change. Educators identified formidable systemic and structural barriers. Overwhelmingly, participants across all five countries pointed to curriculum saturation and rigidity. Francisco captured the sentiment: “[You have] a very limited number of hours for all the things you think [are] very important to talk about.” This makes integrating substantial new ESD content challenging within already crowded programs. As Ella stated, “Our programme is so tight and so full. Our teachers are not willing to leave out something and increase the sustainability discussions in the courses or [create] extra courses.” Claire similarly observed: “[students] have so much going on […] There [are] so many different cognate areas in there, and it’s covering all bases as best we can without diluting the content that we have.” Even with explicit courses, Alejandra admitted “20 h are not enough.”

The structure of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) framework further exacerbates this, creating a zero-sum game by adding ESD credits necessitates removing them from established subjects. As Amelia explained:

This institutional inertia makes significant curriculum reform difficult. Carl suggested that “The challenge is to make lecturers more aware of what they are doing, what they could do, and how they could tweak their programs to focus more on sustainability without completely changing the curricula.”

Compounding these structural issues are critical gaps in educator preparedness, often resulting in ESD not being explicitly taught because faculty lack specific training, which in turn is often not prioritised as a core requirement. Claire described a “chicken and egg” scenario:

The lack of specific CPD and formal ESD training for lecturers was also noted by Amelia (Germany) and Francisco (Portugal) in their respective universities.

Even where training is offered, such as in Finland, low voluntary participation rates suggest insufficient institutional mandates or support systems. Ella reported that when professional development opportunities on sustainability are offered at her institution, “only about 10% of staff typically participate.” This lack of systematic capacity-building among educators represents a major bottleneck to effective ESD implementation.

Despite these significant obstacles, educators clearly perceived a need for change and identified several opportunities and existing strengths that could serve as levers. A primary driver is top-down policy momentum. Participants were aware of national and European Union (EU) goals pushing ESD higher on the agenda. As Claire observed:

Educators like Alejandra actively engage with these policies, making “an effort to keep up to date with the legislation and guidelines issued by the UN and UNESCO” and encouraging her students to read these documents.

Further opportunities lie in better harnessing student voice and agency. While most institutions collect general feedback, specific input on ESD is often lacking because it’s “not requested” (Claire, Ella) or “not intentionally built in” (Francisco). However, Alejandra’s co-constructive approach is promising. She strongly believes students are the “protagonists of their learning process” and noted her course is “almost never the same” as she consults students on topics to incorporate and uses their reflections and feedback to inform course content.

Moreover, participants highlighted pockets of existing good practice demonstrating institutional or individual agency despite constraints. These include strategic initiatives like curriculum mapping against SDGs in Ireland, which Claire noted will help “highlight gaps in the instruction of skills, knowledge and competences.” In Germany, respondents are developing dedicated ESD training resources for faculty and students, striving for “a more integrated and systematic method to embed ESD across disciplines.” In Finland, Ella noted that curriculum changes are teacher-led, with those making changes receiving support if requested, including the ability to “consult with external experts and invite them to give guest lectures and workshops.”

Alongside these broader opportunities, specific pedagogical innovations highlighted by participants demonstrate practical ways ESD is being integrated to enhance student engagement and make sustainability learning more personally meaningful. Alejandra evaluates students based on attendance and participation rather than traditional exams, requiring presence in “at least 80% of classes and the completion of three assignments – an individual reflection, a group project on environmental education references, and a final individual project.” She helps students make sustainability personally relevant by encouraging them to connect it to their specific fields of study. Personal relevance is also foundational to the innovative seminar offered by the German university. Seminar participants are “taught green skills” and how to address “real challenges in schools,” providing them with practical insights into what is truly important in educational settings. Using a challenge-based approach, the seminar focuses on applying theory to find solutions to specific problems and aims to incorporate more real-life examples into the curriculum. Though Amelia observed only about 1% of pre-service teachers in the programme generally participate in the elective courses, those that do have expressed a desire, through in-class discussions and post-course surveys, for more ESD-related content.

Finally, strong existing links between ITE institutions and local schools and communities (noted by all participants) provide a foundation for developing relevant CPD and fostering a more holistic approach to ESD. Claire specifically noted that her school of education “designs CPD classes in consultation with teachers and principals from feeder schools, creating potential opportunities to develop ESD-related CPD.”

The desire for change was further articulated through participants’ recommendations. Alejandra called for “increasing course hours, making ESD a compulsory subject, providing more opportunities for practical experience outside the classroom, and fostering greater collaboration among professors to integrate sustainability across different subjects.” She also wanted to see “recommendations from the national level, global recommendations on how to work on sustainability in secondary and upper secondary education that could serve as a guide.” Carl similarly advocated for more resources, curriculum flexibility, enhanced staff competence and support for pedagogical innovation. “We need a mindset change among students” he added, “[to empower them] to change things in schools.”

Together, these findings illustrate both the complex challenges and hopeful pathways towards embedding sustainability more fully in ITE across Europe.

This study examined how ESD is integrated into ITE across five European contexts, identifying key opportunities and challenges. Despite a small sample, the findings reaffirm broad policy support for ESD while revealing persistent gaps and institutional and pedagogical constraints. The following discussion addresses each research question in turn, drawing on the themes outlined in the literature.

The results reflect how ESD integration remains largely fragmented, often occurring through implicit or as optional means through “accommodative” learning (Cuesta-Claros et al., 2023). As in prior literature (Beveridge et al., 2019; Evans et al., 2017, 2021), interviewees confirmed that even where ESD appears in curricula, it tends to be embedded into disciplinary courses (e.g. science, intercultural education) rather than delivered through stand-alone, mandatory modules. In Ireland and Finland, for example, sustainability is woven into general pedagogy and content-specific modules but lacks a coherent framework. In Portugal, ESD is even less formalised, relying on student initiative within flexible project work. Where explicit provision exists – such as Spain’s 20-h course or Germany’s ESD certificate – participation is voluntary and uptake is limited.

These findings reflect the challenges of operationalising policy-level commitments into practice (Beasy et al., 2024; McKeown and Hopkins, 2017), as well as a reliance on individual educator-interest to drive integration. Yet as this study shows, in some cases, educators are beginning to use tools such as curriculum mapping with the SDGs to identify coverage gaps and embed sustainability more intentionally. This signals a growing awareness of the need to make ESD both systematic and visible across programmes (O’Donoghue et al., 2025; Ssossé et al., 2021). In addition, examples of challenge-based and real-world pedagogies, particularly in Germany and Spain, suggest a promising direction. These approaches connect sustainability with student teachers’ lived experiences and prospective classroom practice, promoting applied learning and personal relevance – core aspects of transformative education (Summers, 2013; Wals, 2011).

The primary obstacles to embedding ESD in ITE reflect well-documented structural and institutional constraints (Beasy et al., 2024; Ceulemans and De Prins, 2010; Lozano et al., 2017). Curriculum overload, ECTS rigidity and disciplinary competition make it difficult to introduce new sustainability content without displacing existing subjects. Participants across all contexts spoke of “tight programmes” and the difficulty of finding space for new topics, even when policy mandates exist. The ECTS was repeatedly cited as a structural bottleneck, reinforcing a zero-sum mentality that hinders curriculum innovation. Moreover, the findings underscore a serious gap in educator preparedness which goes beyond CPD, echoing the literature (Beasy et al., 2024; Cebrián and Junyent, 2015; del Carmen Pegalajar-Palomino et al., 2021; Vidal and Kuckuck, 2025).

Notably, few institutions formally gather student feedback specific to ESD, and most interviewees reported that student-voice is not actively solicited in course development. Yet, as Alejandra’s example in Spain illustrates, co-constructive pedagogies – involving students in shaping course content – can increase relevance, engagement and ownership. Future efforts should proactively integrate learner-centred and values-based ESD pedagogies (Brandt et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2012, 2017). It is proposed that activating student agency could be a particularly effective, yet insufficiently leveraged, avenue for driving educational reform.

Despite these challenges, the study also identifies several concrete opportunities. First, educators across all contexts were acutely aware of growing policy momentum at national and EU levels. Second, some institutions are beginning to invest in ESD-specific infrastructure, such as dedicated training modules, external expert partnerships and pedagogical innovations like real-world simulations and project-based learning. These reflect a shift from theoretical endorsement to more practice-oriented implementation, even if still limited in scale.

Another promising finding relates to the strong existing links between ITE institutions and local schools or communities. Participants in several countries described joint initiatives with partner schools or CPD designed in consultation with practitioners. These partnerships offer fertile ground for scaling up sustainability education and grounding it in place-based, context-relevant practices.

This study examined the current integration of ESD in ITE across five European contexts, revealing significant variability in practice, limited institutional coherence and substantial systemic barriers. Importantly, these findings largely confirm what previous research has shown: the implementation of ESD in teacher education remains ad hoc, optional and fragmented. While this may not reveal radically new insights, such research serves a vital role as a critical evaluative milestone, providing an essential assessment of progress – or the lack thereof – over time and reinforcing the urgent need for sustained efforts to overcome entrenched barriers. Moreover, the lived experiences of educators in this study highlight how these systemic challenges translate into daily realities, impacting the depth and consistency of ESD delivery in teacher education programmes.

Despite robust international policy momentum from entities like UNESCO and the European Union, ESD remains inconsistently embedded within ITE (Beasy et al., 2024), often manifesting as implicit content or optional modules in “accommodative” learning (Cuesta-Claros et al., 2023). These findings underscore a broader global implementation gap between aspirational sustainability goals and the structural realities of higher education institutions seeking to “mainstream” ESD across their philosophies, governance, policies, curricula, pedagogical practices and operational activities through “transformative” learning (Cuesta-Claros et al., 2023; Ferreira et al., 2006, 2007).

Across the cases studied, educators expressed a clear recognition of the urgency of sustainability challenges and a shared desire to better prepare future teachers to address them. However, they also highlighted the limitations of current models, particularly in relation to overloaded curricula, rigid credit systems, insufficient staff development and a lack of institutional mandates. These challenges are not unique to Europe; they echo global trends in teacher education systems struggling to reconcile discipline-based structures with the cross-cutting, values-driven and action-oriented ethos of ESD (Beasy et al., 2024; Rosenberg and Starr, 2020; Pratiwi et al., 2025).

A growing body of research highlights the ongoing need to promote teaching resources that support the implementation of education for the SDGs in ITE (Calero et al., 2025). Addressing this gap, the TESTEd Project (TESTEd Consortium, 2024) proposes a Pan-European syllabus for ESD that offers a coherent and flexible blueprint to harmonise content, key competencies and pedagogical approaches across diverse ITE contexts. By providing clear, shared standards and fostering alignment across institutions and countries, this framework tackles longstanding fragmentation and inconsistency in ESD implementation. Its widespread adoption has the potential to serve as a transformative catalyst, empowering prospective educators with the essential knowledge, skills and dispositions required to integrate sustainability effectively and meaningfully into their teaching practices.

Importantly, such a syllabus does more than set content standards; it fosters cross-national collaboration, resource sharing and coordinated faculty development – directly addressing the capacity gaps and fragmentation surfaced in this study. While the study is situated within a European context, the findings contribute to a wider international conversation about how best to equip teacher educators for transformative sustainability learning. Bridging global policy ambitions with grounded institutional practice will require not only clear frameworks but also sustained investment in pedagogical innovation, leadership and professional learning – challenges that transcend borders but demand locally responsive solutions.

This research was co-funded by the European Union. The TESTEd project consortium contributed to various stages of the research process, including study design, participant recruitment and editorial support during the final submission phase. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.