From frameworks to classrooms: operationalizing sustainability competencies for effective curriculum design in higher education Open Access

Higher education institutions play a crucial role in sustainability transformations by educating future leaders in research, business, politics, administration and civil society. Students can become change agents, equipped with the competencies to initiate and implement transformations within and beyond organizations and systems, thereby making major contributions to broader societal and sustainable transformations (Gordon et al., 2019; Heiskanen et al., 2016; Leal Filho et al., 2019). In recent years, scholars and practitioners have increasingly converged on identifying the key competencies required for sustainability. Key competencies are interconnected clusters of knowledge, skills, motives and attitudes essential for addressing sustainability challenges (Brundiers et al., 2021). They serve as essential guiding principles for academic program development, course design and assessment formats (Mochizuki and Fadeeva, 2010; Wilhelm et al., 2019). As an integrated framework, key competencies are interdependent, with each playing a distinct yet complementary role in advancing sustainability transformations (Brundiers et al., 2021). Within the discourse on relevant key competencies for sustainability, numerous frameworks have been developed, either for general educational purposes or tailored specifically to higher education (Cebrián and Junyent, 2015; Engle et al., 2017; Bianchi, 2020; Glasser and Hirsh, 2016; Lozano et al., 2017; Rieckmann, 2012; Wals, 2015; Wiek et al., 2011, 2016). Despite the diversity of these frameworks and terminology, there is broad agreement on several key sustainability competencies necessary for change agents to advance sustainability transformations (Redman and Wiek, 2021).

While these frameworks offer valuable guidance, translation of their broadly described competencies into practical, context-specific curricula remains complex. Adapting these frameworks to the unique needs of individual institutions, disciplines and student populations requires thoughtful operationalization and contextualization (Barth and Rieckmann, 2016; Hammer and Lewis, 2023; Lozano et al., 2013; Mulder, 2017; Sterling (2013). This process is further complicated by the fact that shifting from discipline-oriented content to competence-oriented approaches is often not intuitive for academic staff and may be perceived as a purely academic exercise than a substantive pedagogical change (Brahm and Jenert, 2013; Wiek and Redman, 2022). While research explores how to foster specific key competencies and examines the effectiveness of related pedagogical approaches in higher education (Birdman et al., 2022; Demssie et al., 2023; Evans, 2019; Gardiner and Rieckmann, 2015; Lozano et al., 2017; Molderez and Ceulemans, 2018; Mulder, 2017), there is little focus on how frameworks and sustainability competencies can be systematically conceptualized and implemented across entire study programmes – going beyond individual modules or courses. Moreover, detailed instructions regarding operationalization of competencies into structured curricula are often lacking. Current approaches frequently treat key competencies as a “grocery list”, leading to fragmented implementation. In line with Wiek and Redman’s (2022) observation that the critical feature of any competence framework lies in integrating competencies so they can be effectively combined for sustainability problem-solving, our approach does not seek to create a new or expanded framework. In contrast to calls for developing additional models (e.g. Salovaara et al., 2020), we deliberately chose to contextualise an existing, unified and widely recognised framework.

Further, specific guidance on how to integrate and assess the interplay of competencies across courses and programmes is often absent, placing undue burden on faculty who may lack the tools or support needed for effective implementation (Brundiers et al., 2021; Wiek and Redman, 2022). The gaps extend to the articulation of competencies in a way that resonates with students, employers and educators (Brahm and Jenert, 2013). Many frameworks remain conceptual and abstract, making it difficult to align them with real-world problem-solving contexts or to assess their outcomes effectively (Brundiers et al., 2021). As a result, sustainability programmes frequently struggle to demonstrate how their curricula equip graduates with employable skills and competencies needed to address complex global challenges (Brundiers et al., 2021; MacDonald and Shriberg, 2016; Wiek and Redman, 2022).

To our knowledge, no existing sustainability programme has made the systematic integration of a key sustainability competencies framework transparent yet. Therefore, the present case study aims to illustrate application of Redman and Wiek’s (2021) unified framework of competencies for advancing sustainability transformations. It does so by integrating insights from complementary frameworks and documenting their adaptation and application in the context of the Master’s in Sustainability Transformations at the University of Bern, Switzerland. The study examines the utility of the framework in shaping a curriculum that balances theoretical learning with the practical demands of real-world sustainability challenges. Further, it documents a collaborative co-design process that involved diverse academic and professional stakeholders, highlighting the importance of faculty engagement in creating a shared understanding of sustainability competencies. This process ensured consistency across the curriculum, rooted in constructive alignment and a spiral-curriculum approach. Ultimately, the study aims to demonstrate how such an approach addresses critical gaps in sustainability education, including the systematic integration of key competencies across an entire programme, fostering coherence and avoiding the fragmented implementation often observed in sustainability curricula. In so doing, this research provides a context-specific case that demonstrates how a competence-based sustainability programmes can be designed and implemented in higher education. Since the programme only commenced in fall 2024, systematic evaluation data (especially quantitative results and graduate tracking) are limited. At this point, insights for the programme’s effectiveness stem primarily from qualitative student reflections, standardised university course evaluations and formative feedback provided by students. While comprehensive impact assessment will follow in the coming years, these early insights already inform ongoing programme development.

The shift towards sustainable practices across industries, governments and civil society has created a high demand for professionals who can initiate and lead transformative processes. The transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy requires a growing workforce in “green” industries and supporting sectors (ILO, 2016). Graduates in sustainability sciences are uniquely positioned to meet this demand, rapidly stepping into leadership roles and shaping emerging fields (Barth, 2023a; Gordon et al., 2019). Recognizing this critical need, the University of Bern, Switzerland, launched its Master’s in Sustainability Transformations in 2024 to prepare experts capable of driving transitions towards sustainable futures.

Developed over several years (starting in 2019), the programme was spearheaded by the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), a cross-faculty research centre at the University of Bern. Building on CDE’s previous experience running minor programmes at the bachelor’s (15, 30 and 60 credit points [CP] since 2013) and master’s level (30 CP since 2015) as well as an extensive prior evaluation (Lewis and Hammer, 2024), the centre leveraged its accumulated knowledge and capacity to design a comprehensive, transformative curriculum.

The programme prepares students to become sustainability specialists capable of critically analysing issues across the interconnected dimensions of sustainability. Graduates are equipped to develop comprehensive, practical solutions at the local, national and international levels. The programme focuses on transformative solutions rather than marginal efficiency improvements. Delivered in English, the programme comprises four semesters of study and 120 CP. Its international outlook attracts a diverse student body and faculty.

Wiek et al.’s (2011) “Reference framework for academic program development” was the first and remains one of the most influential frameworks for sustainability competencies (Grosseck et al., 2019). It identifies five key competencies, later refined in Wiek et al. (2016) with definitions, overarching learning objectives and relevant methods. Brundiers et al. (2021) evaluated Wiek’s initial framework almost a decade later through a Delphi study with international experts, confirming its relevance and recommending the addition of three additional key competencies: intra-personal competence, integration competence and implementation competence. In 2021, Redman and Wiek (2021) presented a unified framework emphasizing the five established competencies and three emerging competencies, complemented by disciplinary, general and professional competencies. Table 1 offers a summarized definition for each key sustainability competence identified in the literature.

While Table 1 synthesises the key competencies most frequently referenced in sustainability higher education, a broader view of the field reveals several important nuances and limitations. Systematic and bibliometric reviews (e.g., Bianchi et al., 2022; Bianchi, 2020; Grosseck et al., 2019; Hallinger and Chatpinyakoop, 2019; Scalabrino, 2022) show that competence frameworks have proliferated over the past decade, yet they vary considerably in conceptual scope, empirical grounding and normative orientation. These synthesis studies highlight persistent fragmentation in the field: competencies are often defined inconsistently across publications, operationalisation remains uneven and most frameworks lack detailed guidance on how competencies interrelate or how they can be coherently embedded across entire programmes. Against this backdrop, our choice to draw primarily on the unified framework by Redman and Wiek (2021) reflects a deliberate effort to work with one of the few models that explicitly integrates established and emerging competencies, includes disciplinary, general and professional domains, and emphasises the interdependencies among competencies. At the same time, we recognise that the field remains dynamic and contested, and that Table 1 represents one possible synthesis rather than an exhaustive or definitive mapping.

In the literature, there is a consensus that key sustainability competencies imparted in academic programmes should be complemented with disciplinary, academic and professional competencies so as to effectively address the demands of sustainability transformations (Barth, 2023b; Brundiers et al., 2021; Redman and Wiek, 2021; Wiek et al., 2011). While experts differ in their emphasis, terminology and categorization, the following similarities can be identified: Disciplinary competence and knowledge is emphasized as a critical complement to the more general or content-independent sustainability competencies (Bianchi, 2020). It refers to the ability to link knowledge with tasks, to incorporate knowledge in problem-solving, to assess results in a knowledge-based manner and to develop new knowledge (Pfäffli, 2015). It encompasses subject-specific and content-dependent expertise in areas like climate, energy, biodiversity, water systems and international development. Such knowledge provides the foundational understanding necessary to apply sustainability competencies in meaningful, impactful ways. Terms used in the literature include disciplinary competencies (Demssie et al., 2019; Redman and Wiek, 2021), topical knowledge (Brundiers et al., 2021), sustainability content knowledge (Barth, 2023b) and subject-specific competencies (Heiskanen et al., 2016).

Similarly, scholars recognize the role of academic and professional skills as indispensable complements to one another (Chalmers and Partridge, 2013). Some authors maintain academic and professional skills as distinct categories (Redman and Wiek, 2021), while others conceptualize them as an integrated set of competencies (Barth, 2023b). Academic skills include critical thinking, effective writing, designing research, presenting research results (Brundiers et al., 2021), pluralistic thinking, data management (Wiek et al., 2011), providing feedback, networking and collaborating in teams (Mulder et al., 2009) and research competencies (Lambrechts and Van Petegem, 2016). Academic competencies serve as the foundation of academic sustainability education and are important learning outcomes of higher education (Tuononen and Parpala, 2021; Wiek et al., 2011).

The Master’s in Sustainability Transformations was developed through an iterative, multi-year process designed to equip graduates as effective change agents for sustainability transformations (Figure 1).

We began by envisioning professional roles graduates would eventually assume as sustainability professionals and the competencies they would require to succeed as effective change agents (Sohrmann et al., 2020). Then, to conceptualize the trajectories of our programme participants, we employed a backcasting approach. Backcasting is a strategic planning approach that begins by envisioning a desirable state and then works backward to identify the steps, conditions and pathways needed to achieve that vision – starting in the present (De Bruin et al., 2017; Wiek and Iwaniec, 2014). Six expert workshops (Niederberger, 2015) were held between December 2019 and August 2021 to define the roles and responsibilities that our graduates would ideally assume in the future. These workshops brought together members of CDE’s directorate, researchers, international experts in sustainability education and the University of Bern educational development unit (LEAD). Starting with a vision of sustainability professionals who are equipped to drive transformative change, we identified the roles/tasks they would ideally assume and the related competencies they would need to fulfil them. By mapping these desired competencies backward to the present, we ensured that our curriculum would contribute to the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for students to meet future demands in sustainability-focused careers. Within the backcasting process, three central qualification profiles were identified that informed our ongoing design of the programme. These profiles define the primary professional fields in which graduates are expected to contribute to sustainability transformations:

• Research and research-related fields: Graduates are equipped to conduct both transformative and transformation research aimed at addressing global sustainability challenges. This encompasses fundamental research to advance theoretical understanding as well as applied research that directly contributes to solving sustainability problems through innovative approaches.

• Sustainability transformations in business, politics and administration: The programme prepares students to design and implement sustainable strategies in various organizational contexts. Graduates are qualified to assume key roles in businesses, governmental institutions and political organizations, driving the development and implementation of sustainability initiatives and contributing to systemic change.

• Sustainability transformations through civil society initiatives: Students are trained to lead and facilitate transformative processes within non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society entities. They develop the capacity to design and implement innovative solutions that address sustainability challenges at local, national and global levels, fostering societal engagement and action for sustainable development.

Our next step involved aligning the identified competencies with competencies essential for advancing sustainability transformations. This process focused on combining findings from the graduate trajectory workshops with literature reviews and institutional frameworks. Further refinement was informed by tracer studies conducted with graduates of CDE’s own educational programmes (Hammer and Lewis, 2023; Karrer et al., 2023; Trechsel et al., 2021) as well as other studies that provided data on graduate trajectories, career paths and essential competencies identified in professional sustainability practice (e.g. Barth, 2023a; Eberz et al., 2023; Gordon et al., 2019; Salovaara, 2022; Salovaara and Soini, 2021; Venn et al., 2022) and in the context of sustainability transformations (Hölscher et al., 2017; Howaldt and Schwarz, 2017). Practical insights were integrated from the CDE’s Theory of Change (ToC) (Bader et al., 2024). The ToC serves as a strategic framework, articulating the desired impacts of CDE’s initiatives and the pathways to achieving them. By integrating findings from the graduate trajectory workshops with insights from CDE’s ToC, we ensured that the programme would remain rooted in CDE’s mission and overarching goals. Insights from CDE’s ToC emphasized fostering sustainability competencies that enable graduates to serve as agents of transformation, capable of driving international cooperation and real-world applications of sustainability principles. To ensure alignment with national standards, we also considered the Swissuniversities’ Qualifications Framework for the Higher Education Area (Swissuniversities, 2021).

Throughout the process, we used the three-dimension model by Barth (2023b) as a guiding principle. The initial model was presented by one of the participants in an expert workshop and later published in 2023. It was used in (re)formulation of the competencies to determine whether all axes (sustainability content knowledge, academic and professional skills, sustainability key competencies) were represented in the programme, as well as to provide initial indications for curricular implementation. An iterative approach, involving multiple review rounds with experts, ensured that the resulting competencies addressed both theoretical foundations and practical demands. Using the insights gained from the literature review, institutional experience and expert workshops, we ultimately derived a list of 33 competencies ( Appendix 1) relevant to sustainability transformations that should be fostered in our master’s programme (see CDE, 2024).

The next phase of the curriculum development process involved grouping the identified competencies into thematic clusters and organizing them into modules representing the core building blocks of the programme. Each module was designed to focus on specific core (module) competencies out of the 33 identified, ensuring a targeted yet integrated approach to competence development. While core competencies are emphasized in each module, other competencies are also fostered in the corresponding courses. This structured framework enables students to develop their competencies in a coherent and application-oriented learning context, rather than in isolation. The module competencies served as guiding principles for content and more detailed learning outcomes – including assessment formats – during further development of the courses in each module (Figure 2). This alignment was essential to ensure consistency across the programme, in particular because of our multidisciplinary context in which faculty members come from diverse academic backgrounds. By anchoring the learning outcomes and assessments in clearly defined competencies at the module level, the programme maintains a coherent and unified educational framework.

Building on this foundation, the courses within each module – and their respective assessment formats – were designed following the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) and didactic coherence (Herweg et al., 2021). This pedagogical approach ensures that the learning outcomes, teaching and learning formats and assessments are systematically aligned across the macro level (study programme), meso level (modules) and micro level (courses), enabling students to effectively acquire and demonstrate the targeted competencies while also linking corresponding pedagogical approaches to competencies that should be fostered (Lozano et al., 2017). In addition, a spiral-curriculum approach was adopted for the programme design, such that learning content and competencies are revisited at increasing levels of complexity throughout the curriculum. This iterative structure enables reinforcement and deepening of knowledge and skills as students advance in their studies (Molitor et al., 2023; Tosch, 2022).

Following the initial curriculum development, we applied Redman and Wiek’s (2021) unified framework (2021) – published during this process – as a cross-check to evaluate the alignment of the developed curriculum. Its multidimensional perspective ensures that sustainability education addresses both broad conceptual foundations and specific, actionable skills. This reinforces the diverse, transdisciplinary aims of the CDE Master’s in Sustainability Transformations. The framework also reflects a convergence of scholarly perspectives, offering a recognized benchmark for sustainability competencies (Brundiers et al., 2021; Redman and Wiek, 2021). Use of this framework enabled us to harmonize the curriculum with globally accepted standards, increasing its credibility and relevance in both academic and professional contexts. Moreover, aligning the curriculum with this recognized framework offers potential value for future accreditation processes, as it provides a transparent, evidence-based reference for demonstrating quality and relevance (Brundiers et al., 2023). By including disciplinary, general and professional competencies, the framework supports integration of foundational and specialized knowledge. This aligns with the programme objective of providing a well-rounded education that prepares students for diverse career paths in sustainability. Finally, application of the framework enabled us to identify potential gaps in the curriculum and areas in need of further improvement (e.g., in the conceptualization of elective courses), keeping it responsive to the evolving demands of sustainability education.

Though all the key sustainability competencies – plus general, professional and disciplinary competencies – are fostered throughout the study programme, certain modules place a particular emphasis on specific competencies, thus serving as focal points for their development (Table 2). These modules contribute to the comprehensive competence framework by addressing distinct aspects of sustainability education while also complementing other areas in the broader curriculum. Each module (and corresponding courses) employs tailored pedagogical approaches and assessment formats to align with its focal competencies, ensuring that students engage with and apply these competencies in diverse, meaningful ways (Figure 3).

This modular focus enables in-depth exploration of key competencies while maintaining an integrated approach across the programme. Values-thinking is not confined to a specific module, but rather functions as a foundational competence underpinning various modules and courses. This competence serves as a critical lens for questioning methods, power structures and individual and collective values across the curriculum. It supports students in assessing the sustainability of current and future states of complex systems, constructing sustainability visions and evaluating the ethical implications of action plans and interventions. Modules such as DF (see Table 2 for full names and module descriptions) encourage students to reflect on the ethical dimensions of envisioning sustainable futures while PfT challenges them to consider value-laden trade-offs in strategic planning and implementation processes. Similarly, SPS fosters the ability to mediate diverse stakeholder values and principles, ensuring inclusive and justice-oriented decision-making. Embedding values-thinking across modules ensures it is continually revisited, enabling students to critically assess and reconcile diverse values professionally and academically.

The programme fosters general competencies such as critical thinking, creativity and metacognition through challenge-based learning, collaborative and transdisciplinary projects and reflective exercises. Critical thinking, for example, is strengthened in modules such as SfS and Thesis, creativity in SG through innovative, game-based solutions to real-world sustainability problems, encouraging creative approaches to overcome systemic barriers. Creativity is also fostered at the course level, for example in a workshop on drawing comics to communicate sustainability and species extinction. The module PersDev integrates strategies for lifelong learning and metacognition – including self-reflection, resilience-building and self-directed exploration – helping students develop adaptive learning capabilities. The programme also emphasizes professional competencies needed to advance sustainability transformations. These are cultivated through modules such as SPS by developing skills for inclusive stakeholder engagement, empathetic leadership and conflict resolution. Students learn to communicate effectively with diverse audiences, bridging gaps between academic and non-academic stakeholders. The modules PfT and SG train students in designing, planning and guiding strategic sustainability interventions while managing resources and coordinating multidisciplinary teams. This gives students the practical skills needed to adapt to changing conditions and conduct successful sustainability initiatives. By fostering these competencies, the programme ensures that graduates are not only proficient in sustainability-specific key competencies, but also well-equipped with the general and professional skills needed to navigate the complexities of sustainability transformations in diverse professional contexts.

Our programme employs a spiral-curriculum approach to competence integration, ensuring gradual and intensifying development of competencies (Tosch, 2022). Systems thinking, a cornerstone of understanding and addressing sustainability challenges (Molderez and Ceulemans, 2018; Reynolds et al., 2018; Sterling, 2004), represents a prime example of how this approach is implemented. Systems thinking is cultivated in multiple modules and courses, progressively enhancing students’ abilities to analyse, understand and address complex sustainability problems across different scales and domains (Wiek et al., 2016). Initial year one courses provide foundational knowledge and skills in systems thinking (Figure 2). During the “Kick-Off Days” (field trip prior to semester start), students gain initial insights into systemic change and sustainability transformation research. Through experiential learning activities like walk-shops, collaborative small projects and storytelling, students begin to understand the interconnected nature of sustainability challenges and the relevance of systems thinking in addressing them. The course “Introduction to Sustainability Transformations: Analytical Tools and Concepts to Explain Systemic Change” builds on this foundation by teaching students the basics of systems thinking and transformation theories. In this course, students learn:

• to grasp the basics of systems thinking, transformation of systems and systemic concepts (e.g., feedback loops, interdependencies, tipping points);

• to analyse transformation cases to identify intervention points, actor roles and the interplay between institutions and technologies in transformations;

• to identify challenges, opportunities and potential interventions for initiating transformations in real-world cases; and

• to critically reflect on transitions/transformation research. The course incorporates practical activities like group projects and case studies, ensuring students apply their learning to real-world examples and reinforce their competence in systems thinking.

In year two, systems thinking is further strengthened in the “Transformation Practice (Student Project)” part of the PfT module. The course emphasizes applying systems thinking in practical transdisciplinary projects. Students work on sustainability challenges introduced to the class by practitioners, systematically developing approaches to address them. Project work enables students:

• to construct advanced conceptual problem models incorporating systemic features (e.g., feedback loops, cascading effects);

• to analyse real-world transformation scenarios using systems-thinking frameworks; and

• to propose and evaluate systemic interventions, considering potential unintended consequences and trade-offs.

By engaging with real-world stakeholders and challenges, students deepen their understanding of how systems-thinking informs actionable sustainability solutions.

The programme culminates in the Thesis module, where systems thinking is integrated into the research process. Students independently apply systems thinking to design, execute and present a scientific investigation addressing a complex sustainability problem. This involves:

• developing dynamic system models to simulate and predict the impacts of different sustainability interventions;

• analysing system dynamics (e.g., historical trajectories, root causes of sustainability problems, potential intervention pathways); and

• critically reflecting on the research process, integrating feedback and presenting findings to an interdisciplinary audience.

The thesis represents the capstone of systems thinking, allowing students to demonstrate their ability to synthesize knowledge, conduct robust analyses and propose systemic solutions. In addition to the core courses, systems thinking is fostered in modules such as MST and SfS. They provide methodological tools and disciplinary knowledge necessary for robust system analyses. For example, the MST module equips students with skills in qualitative and quantitative system analysis, participatory modelling and causal chain analysis; and SfS introduces students to advanced concepts from various disciplines (e.g., resilience, adaptation, institutional analysis), further enriching their systemic perspective.

Preliminary empirical evidence from student reflection assessments in the “Transformative Pathways: Bridging Analysis and Implementation” course (PfT) supports the effectiveness of our spiral-curriculum approach for our example of systems-thinking competence. These reflections illustrate how students’ conceptualizations of transformation evolved from the first semester (SoS) to the applied project work in the second semester. For instance, one student described entering the programme with only vague notions of “transformation” drawn from business contexts but reported that exposure to systems thinking concepts enabled her/him to systematically analyse transformation processes and connect theory with practice in the module PfT. Similarly, another student reflected that while the first semester provided a “broad, technical picture of transformations”, the module PfT “zoomed in” on human-focused and practice-oriented aspects, complementing the initial theoretical foundation. These examples indicate that students not only acquire systems-thinking tools progressively but also integrate them into richer, more holistic understandings of transformation processes. In addition to these course-based reflections, early insights from a short survey (n = 9) conducted in the third semester of the first cohort further indicate the relevance of systems thinking for students’ emerging professional practice. Students already employed in sustainability-related roles reported that they were able to draw directly on competencies developed in the programme - particularly the ability to “see the bigger picture” when working on real-world projects and to apply systems-thinking. These self-reported applications suggest that the programme’s first year emphasis on systems thinking not only supports academic learning but also translates into practical capacities valued in professional sustainability contexts.

Building on the results presented above, this discussion is structured along two complementary lines. First, we revisit the substantive insights from the curriculum design and early implementation, focusing on how the unified competence framework was operationalised across the programme and how students experience the resulting competence-oriented and spiral-curricular structure. Second, we broaden the perspective to reflect on institutional learning processes, implementation challenges and the implications of our experience for the transferability of competence-oriented sustainability programmes to other disciplinary and organisational contexts.

This case study shows how Redman and Wiek’s (2021) framework of competencies for advancing sustainability transformations (2021) was applied to develop a comprehensive curriculum for the University of Bern Master’s in Sustainability Transformations. Through a co-development process, the framework was adapted and supplemented with insights from other competence models (Barth, 2023b; Brundiers et al., 2021; Wiek et al., 2011, 2016) to align with the programme’s unique goals and context. This approach underscores the importance of operationalizing competence frameworks to specific educational settings while addressing gaps in sustainability education. By integrating Redman and Wiek’s (2021) unified framework (2021) in curriculum development, we ensured a comprehensive approach to fostering sustainability competencies. Previous comparative studies, such as Salovaara et al. (2020) and Birdman et al. (2020), show that while individual sustainability competencies are often addressed in courses, their systematic integration at the programme level – and the logic behind it – frequently remains implicit. Romulo et al. (2024) further note that, although competence frameworks can clarify intended learning outcomes, there is limited evidence of how they are applied in practice and combined with relevant disciplinary and interdisciplinary content. Similar approaches to competence-oriented curriculum design have been documented, for example, by Brahm and Jenert (2013), who discuss the integration of competence orientation into programme development, and by Tosch (2022) and Molitor et al. (2023), who illustrate the use of spiral-curriculum structures to foster interconnected learning outcomes. Birdman et al. (2020) present sustainability-oriented Master’s programmes that integrate selected key competencies.

Against this backdrop, the University of Bern Master’s in Sustainability Transformations is distinctive in applying a comprehensive framework approach that embeds and explicitly connects all key sustainability competencies across the entire programme structure. This design makes the integration logic transparent, links it to both disciplinary and interdisciplinary content and follows a core principle of the unified framework: sustainability problem-solving requires not only coverage of all key competencies but also explicit guidance on how they interrelate (Wiek and Redman, 2022). By deliberately embedding and making visible these interconnections across modules, the programme addresses common integration gaps and supports the development of graduates able to combine competencies effectively in complex, real-world contexts. The modules were designed to focus on promoting interconnected competencies through targeted pedagogical strategies. DF and SG enabled in-depth development of futures-thinking and strategies-thinking while the PersDev module introduced a critical emphasis on intra-personal competencies, addressing a growing need in sustainability education (Brundiers et al., 2021; Brundiers and Wiek, 2017; Jaakkola et al., 2022; Wiek and Redman, 2022). Following the logic of the unified framework, the programme prioritizes planning competencies – including systems thinking, futures thinking, values thinking and strategies thinking – in modules offered at the beginning of studies. These foundational competencies establish a coherent basis for subsequent acquisition of advanced skills. In line with Brundiers et al. (2023), values-thinking is continuously fostered across the curriculum. This approach recognizes the lead role of values-thinking in orienting the application of the other competencies and reinforces the integrative and normative function in guiding sustainability problem-solving processes. Integration competence – a capstone of the framework – is strategically developed across the curriculum; it culminates in the Thesis module, in which students address a sustainability challenge, enabling them to synthesize and apply their learning – by connecting their competencies – for complex problem-solving. In parallel, professional, disciplinary and general competencies are interwoven throughout the programme, reinforcing its interdisciplinary nature and fostering graduates who are well-equipped for real-world problem-solving. Key strengths of this approach include its ability to identify competence gaps and ensure that the curriculum is not simply a list of unrelated competencies. Instead, it embodies a cohesive, transformative educational strategy tailored to the institutional ToC and the anticipated needs of graduates. Aligning the curriculum with the unified framework also enables coherent communication to students, who often have difficulties distinguishing key competencies from each other and from other general competencies (e.g., creativity) (Wiek and Redman, 2022).

Given that the programme is still in its early phase, empirical evaluation is currently limited to qualitative insights and standardised course evaluations. While comprehensive longitudinal data will be collected in the coming years – particularly after graduates enter the labour market – early feedback mechanisms already provide meaningful indications of the programme’s reception and effectiveness. As the Master’s in Sustainability Transformations was developed as a new programme, no earlier non-competence-based version exists against which longitudinal comparisons could be made. Moreover, although sustainability-related Master programmes exist internationally, few explicitly operationalise a competence framework at the programme level (Salovaara et al., 2020), leaving no directly comparable case for empirical contrast. Nevertheless, feedback from the first cohort (n = 14) provides initial indications of the added value of the competence-oriented design. Students described the programme as “very well aligned” across modules and semesters and highlighted the transparency of learning pathways and spiral-curricular structure. Several contrasted these features with their previous undergraduate studies, noting that such clarity and coherence were largely new to them. Informal exchanges – particularly during the “Kick-Off Days” – as well as structured feedback channels, including input collected by the student representative, further pointed to high satisfaction with the programme’s innovative and competence-oriented formats. Standardised course evaluations ( Appendix 2) support these impressions, with most courses scoring above the Faculty of Science mean for perceived learning progress and overall satisfaction. The programme’s teaching quality has also been externally recognised, with two courses receiving a “Recognition for courses with outstanding evaluation results” from the Faculty of Science and one international teaching and learning award (ENLIGHT, 2025). Preliminary insights from a short survey further suggest that the programme is beginning to translate into professional practice. Several students already employed in sustainability-related roles reported that the programme supported their entry into these positions and enabled them to apply competencies such as systems thinking, multi-stakeholder collaboration and the analysis of complex challenges in their daily work. While the extent of application varies across employment contexts, these early indications suggest that the competence-oriented design supports graduates in preparing for diverse roles in sustainability transformations.

Building on these substantive and student-related insights, we broaden the discussion to institutional learning processes, implementation challenges and lessons that may be relevant for the development of competence-oriented sustainability programmes in other contexts. While we do not present our case as a universal role model, given the need to tailor such programmes to specific institutional, cultural and disciplinary settings (Barth and Rieckmann, 2012; Hammer and Lewis, 2023) – we see its value in offering transparent, process-oriented insights that may inform and inspire similar initiatives elsewhere. Looking back on the development process and its practical implications, we identify several success-relevant factors and challenges that may inform other curriculum designers. The Master’s in Sustainability Transformations was grounded in a combination of conceptual rigour and institutional knowledge, drawing on a comprehensive literature review, CDE’s long-standing institutional expertise and expert workshops that brought together diverse disciplinary perspectives. Starting from real-world situations and anticipated graduate trajectories, and applying a backcasting approach to derive competencies, helped anchor the curriculum in graduate’s future roles rather than in thematic coverage alone. The unified framework of Redman and Wiek (2021) served as an important reference point for ensuring the interrelation of competencies and identifying gaps.

Early engagement of faculty (module leaders) and the use of co-design workshops were central to translating the identified competencies into a coherent curriculum structured around nine modules. This process fostered commitment, ensured that individual contributions could be meaningfully positioned within the overall programme architecture and laid the foundation for collaborative, competence-oriented curriculum design. Each module was defined through explicit module-level competencies, linked to course learning outcomes via constructive alignment and embedded in a spiral curriculum that revisits and deepens competencies across semesters (Biggs, 1996; Lozano et al., 2017; Molitor et al., 2023).

The module handbook emerged as a key instrument for connecting micro-level course design with meso-level programme coherence. It supported coordination among faculty, enabled transparent communication of expectations to students and fostered a sense of shared ownership by allowing faculty to contribute their disciplinary expertise within a clearly articulated didactic framework (Barth and Rieckmann, 2012; Lozano et al., 2022). At the same time, building a shared sense of ownership across faculty from diverse disciplinary backgrounds proved challenging. The participatory design process and the module handbook were instrumental in aligning perspectives and developing a collective commitment to the programme’s goals. This, however, required sustained leadership capacity and pedagogical expertise to continuously reflect on and further develop programme elements in collaboration with the teaching team.

In our context, the process was greatly facilitated by strong institutional backing from the Executive Board of the University of Bern, alignment with cantonal accreditation priorities and strategic support for sustainability education. These favourable conditions, combined with early and sustained faculty involvement, enabled the programme to progress from conceptual design to implementation within just a few years-a pace that in other contexts may require considerably more time and resources. At the same time, student feedback pointing to “slightly too Swiss-centric” course materials and examples highlighted the need for ongoing reflexivity regarding positionality and context. Despite deliberate efforts to internationalise the curriculum and to diversify cases and perspectives, contextual biases remained. In response, international co-teaching formats and a broader range of case studies have been strengthened, and future iterations will further systematise these efforts to encourage critical engagement with the situatedness of knowledge. The early implementation phase also revealed challenges at the course level. In one case, a course received comparatively low ratings in the standardised course evaluations ( Appendix 2). This reflected the fact that several new courses, teaching formats and assessment logics were developed simultaneously. Importantly, formative feedback structures (such as mid-semester feedback and ongoing dialogue with students) enabled timely reflection and course reorientation while the semester was still ongoing. In response, the teaching team developed a concise course script clarifying key concepts, pedagogical logic and the interlinkages between modules SoS and PfT. These adjustments to content framing, teaching methods and workload distribution illustrate how evaluation was used as a developmental tool rather than solely for summative assessment. This experience highlights the importance of iterative refinement and adaptive capacity when implementing competence-oriented curricula particularly in early programme phases.

Beyond these context-specific aspects, the implementation process also revealed several challenges that are likely to be relevant across institutions. Coordinating a competence-oriented curriculum across more than 30 faculty members from diverse disciplinary backgrounds required sustained dialogue to establish shared understandings of competencies and their interrelations. Achieving constructive alignment at course, module and programme levels involved iterative negotiation, while workload constraints and institutional timelines limited the depth of participation at times. These experiences underscore that adopting a holistic competence framework is not merely a technical task but a relational and organisational process - an insight that may be particularly instructive for institutions planning similar curricular transformations.

Our case demonstrates that structured approaches to curriculum design can bridge the gap between theoretical competence frameworks and practical application at the programme level in higher education. Rather than offering a universal blueprint, we see the value of our experience in its potential to inspire other higher education institutions to develop their own context-specific, competence-oriented sustainability programmes based on existing and agreed-upon frameworks. By making our design process transparent - together with the methods used and preliminary empirical insights - we contribute to the growing body of knowledge on how comprehensive competence frameworks can be applied in real-world academic settings. While application of the unified framework in a single institutional context provided valuable insights, limitations remain. Further research should focus on longitudinal studies to evaluate how graduates apply their acquired competencies in professional settings, including the labour market, transformative projects and other-real world contexts. In addition, expanding application of the unified framework to other disciplines and institutional contexts could refine its utility and foster the cross-institutional collaboration called for by Redman and Wiek (2021). Inclusion of diverse perspectives and global contexts would also enhance the framework’s adaptability and scalability for advancing sustainability transformations. Looking ahead, our further research will validate the module-specific competencies with professionals in research, sustainability transformations in organizations and civil society initiatives. Expanding this validation process to international contexts, particularly in CDE’s partner regions, offers an opportunity to enhance the framework’s applicability and scalability. By engaging professionals across different sectors and cultural contexts, future studies can refine the alignment of competencies with global sustainability challenges, further contributing to the evolving discourse on sustainability education.

From a reflexive standpoint, our dual role as researchers and institutional actors shaped the curriculum development process in enabling and constraining ways. Our formal responsibility within the process provided privileged access to strategic decisions and continuity in advancing a competence-oriented approach. At the same time, this embeddedness required continuous ethical reflection, particularly when negotiating tensions between institutional demands for measurable outcomes and the more process-oriented, transformative aims of sustainability competencies. A further challenge concerned balancing inclusive participation with institutional efficiency: despite co-creation efforts, tight timelines and workload structures meant that not all voices could always be equally represented. Nevertheless, contributions from more than 30 faculty and teaching staff across 16 disciplines indicate that the resulting design reflects broad institutional engagement rather than the perspective of a single team.

The authors would like to thank Lydia Rufer and Thomas Tribelhorn from the educational development unit “Learning and Development” (LEAD) of the University of Bern for their invaluable expertise and support in designing the master’s programme. Special thanks go to all the experts who participated in numerous workshops and to the faculty members who contributed to co-creating this innovative programme. We would also like to thank the students in the programme's first cohort for their ongoing feedback. We extend our gratitude to Helen Pérez for her assistance with references in this article and to Anu Lannen for editing the manuscript. Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to read the manuscript and for their suggestions on how to improve its quality.

List of competencies (n = 33) to be fostered within the Master’s programme Sustainability Transformations at the University of Bern, Switzerland:

• identify relevant stakeholders and express their perspectives in your own words; identify essential interdependencies, commonalities and differences in viewpoints between stakeholders – and work out the consequences of these.

• independently explore and acquire knowledge on new topics, based on available learning and working techniques.

• recognize the various roles that are necessary for initiating and accompanying societal transformation processes and, based on your findings, identify different entry and leverage points.

• recognize crisis phenomena as an expression and result of social and economic structures and modes of operation, describe their condition and trends and describe interactions with other crisis phenomena.

• justify why and for whom a condition or trend represents a problem and describe general approaches to solutions for overcoming it.

• distinguish between symptoms and causes of sustainability problems; explain the causes.

• analyse situations with regard to different sustainability concepts and based on this, design target visions of a more sustainable future and determine the knowledge required.

• describe “desirable futures” imagined by different actors.

• investigate and evaluate the potential of alternative paradigms (from science and society).

• identify, explain and apply methods relevant to (sustainability) science.

• include and justify epistemological decisions and normative aspects of the research process when selecting and applying methods.

• independently conduct scientific research, critically evaluate the sources found and clearly define the scope and boundaries of your research topic.

• determine appropriate methods, tools and resources for problem-solving, based on situation analyses.

• construct scenarios and/or target concepts based on existing or acquired data, simulations and/or predictions.

• integrate knowledge from science and practice to generate novel, solution-oriented knowledge.

• advise authorities and decision-makers on strategic decisions related to sustainability goals, and propose goals and development measures.

• identify needs for change of certain sustainability goals, and plan and guide change processes.

• bring cooperative problem-solving skills to multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams.

• recognize different opinions, interests and implicit and explicit values of stakeholders, and negotiate and moderate these in concrete situations.

• analyse power relations within actor constellations, to resolve possible path dependencies and lock-ins.

• identify criteria for transferability or scalability.

• design projects that aim at sustainability transformations, using creative techniques; manage project portfolios; coordinate project teams.

• develop innovative solutions to real-world sustainability problems, and present these in the form of a game.

• identify sustainability topics for an exchange between science and society, find a suitable format for opportunities and events and plan and execute them.

• present and communicate the principles and knowledge you have acquired and the conclusions derived from them in a way that is appropriate for the target group.

• evaluate sustainable development projects by appropriate means and derive measures from the evaluation results.

• justify your actions against the background of different concepts of social change and sustainability transformations and make appropriate decisions.

• critically question your own knowledge and actions, as well as personal norms, practices and opinions – taking into account cultural conditions of knowledge.

• cultivate resilience-oriented self-care and develop appropriate strategies to overcome personal (mental) health challenges.

• independently apply and deepen the acquired theoretical expertise to solve a scientific problem.

• describe and present the problem, the development of the problem, hypotheses, methodology, implementation and results of project and research work in a structured manner.

• design action steps towards solving “wicked problems”, critical problems that seem unsolvable and that are characterized by uncertainty.

• continuously reflect on the research process and the findings obtained.