Localizing sustainability competences in business higher education: a practice-based framework for contextual curriculum design in Egyptian business education Open Access

Over the past few decades, sustainability has become a global priority, with higher education institutions (HEIs) positioned as agents of change. Education is framed not only as a channel for knowledge transfer but also as a mechanism for shaping values, behaviors, and collective action toward sustainability (Bryant et al., 2023; Fazey et al., 2021). In business and management schools, this has led to reflexive, values-based approaches, yet challenges remain in translating sustainability into meaningful curriculum strategies (Bonilla-Jurado et al., 2024).

Internationally, institutions that adopt Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) are often described as having embedded sustainability within their practices (Kopnina and Meijers, 2014). However, this assumption risks universalizing experiences that may not resonate across all contexts. Egypt is a leading example of an emerging market in the MENA region (Aladwey and Diab, 2023). The country witnessed a notable progress in Egypt's higher education landscape, particularly with the adoption of Egypt's Vision 2030 (ElMassah, 2016; Miyakoshi, 2016). Yet in education, students perceive sustainability as peripheral to their daily lives (Mohamed et al., 2024). This disconnect raises questions about whether ESD as currently implemented, can meaningfully influence student practices in a specific cultural setting.

Theoretical perspectives such as Social Practice Theory (SPT) offer useful insight by shifting attention from individual attitudes to the interplay of meanings, materials, and competences that constitute everyday practices (Shove et al., 2012). Hence, we argue that ESD initiatives in culturally rich contexts gain greater relevance when aligned with local ethical and social frameworks. In Egypt and similar regions, principles such as social responsibility, community welfare, and stewardship, which are informed by cultural heritage, provide ethical and practical anchors that closely parallel sustainability objectives (Tam, 2025; Sule and Musa, 2025; Ibrahim et al., 2025). Yet these principles, especially when examined through a social practice lens, are rarely mobilized as pedagogical tools in business higher education.

This paper addresses this gap by exploring how sustainability competences can be embedded through culturally grounded practices that reflect students' values, language, and everyday realities. It also develops a practice-based model that links the three elements of Shove et al. (2012) practice model to local ethical anchors and institutional arrangements in business higher education. Using semi-structured interviews with students, faculty, and curriculum developers at the American University in Cairo (AUC), the study investigates how sustainability education can be made more locally relevant and pedagogically effective. In this model, sustainability competences emerge from the interaction of ethical meanings (responsibility, moderation, welfare), material infrastructures (curricula, campus systems, tools), and skills and know-how (e.g. problem-solving, stakeholder engagement, project implementation). “Practices”, “values”, “ethics”, and “engagement” are thus not separate from competences but are social configurations expressed in everyday university life.

The American University in Cairo (AUC) represents a distinctive case within Egyptian higher education due to its liberal arts orientation, international accreditation, and emphasis on ethics, civic engagement, and responsible leadership within its business programs (American University in Cairo, n.d.). The School of Business integrates experiential learning, community engagement, and ethical reasoning as core elements of its mission, making it a suitable setting for examining how global sustainability frameworks interact with local cultural and institutional values in business education (American University in Cairo, Onsi Sawiris School of Business, n.d.). This study contributes in three ways. First, it offers empirical insights into how students, faculty, and administrators perceive and represent sustainability meanings, materials, and competences within a leading Egyptian business school. Second, it advances theory by applying SPT to sustainability pedagogy in an emerging-market context, showing how culturally specific ethical meanings and institutional arrangements shape the development of sustainability competences. Third, it provides a practical tool, namely the Sustainability Terminology Matrix and related curriculum design principles that support embedding sustainability competences in culturally relevant and pedagogically actionable ways.

This literature review examines three key challenges facing the integration of ESD within Egyptian and similar emerging market contexts: the disconnect of global frameworks, limited integration at the practical level, and the underutilization of local cultural anchors. To address these issues, we utilize the SPT as a promising tool to address these challenges, providing a framework for localizing sustainability competences in line with institutional and societal realities.

ESD has gained global importance in higher education as a vehicle for shaping values, behaviors, and collective action toward sustainability (Fazey et al., 2021). Emerging market contexts such as Egypt face challenges in adopting frameworks developed primarily in Western settings (Abozaied, 2018; Manteaw, 2008). Despite endorsement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), sustainability remains weakly embedded in curricula and institutional practices (Bonilla-Jurado et al., 2024; El-Sherbiny et al., 2022). Without adaptation to local cultural and educational contexts, sustainability education will remain abstract or disconnected from students' lived realities, limiting its effectiveness (Abo-Khalil, 2024; Oraif, 2024; Malik and Abdallah, 2019). Although prior research acknowledges ESD challenges in emerging markets (Bonilla-Jurado et al., 2024), few studies integrate culturally grounded ethical principles into business curricula, limiting transformative impact (Russo et al., 2023).

Culture shapes how sustainability is understood and practiced, particularly in the MENA region, where shared values and social norms strongly influence environmental behavior (Tam, 2025; Ibrahim et al., 2025). Recent regional studies demonstrate that culturally framed meanings, such as community welfare, moderation, stewardship of local heritage, and collective responsibility, influence how sustainability messages are perceived and acted upon (Tam, 2025; Ibrahim et al., 2025). People relate to sustainability most strongly when it is tied to shared cultural ethics rather than global terms (Ibrahim et al., 2025). Local identities and institutional narratives also shape how global sustainability goals are understood and translated into public behavior and policy (Strizhakova and Coulter, 2024; Al-Zo'by, 2019). In Egypt, social values and norms such as stewardship and charity help explain, and are aligned with, various sustainability behaviors, suggesting that sustainability education should engage cultural vocabularies and civic motivations to generate change (Abozaied, 2018; Vincenti, 2016; Dahl, 2015; Rice, 2006). Yet they remain marginalized within formal curricula, without explicit links to broader sustainability frameworks, resulting in a potential loss of an identity-based and morally meaningful educational experiences that could inspire deeper engagement.

Despite policy commitments, sustainability integration in Egyptian and international higher education remains limited due to weak institutional frameworks and insufficient faculty development (El-Sherbiny et al., 2022; Décamps et al., 2017). In emerging markets, this could be particularly because models struggle to resonate culturally (Bryant et al., 2023). Internationally, a test called Sulitest (Sustainability Literacy Test) is recognized as an assessment tool developed to measure sustainability knowledge and skills among higher education students and professionals (Décamps et al., 2017). It signifies that sustainability often remains peripheral to core institutional values. In the MENA region, resource scarcity, rigid curricular structures, and fragmented policymaking further obstruct the integration of sustainability principles (Adly, 2020). Collectively, these factors highlight a widening divide between sustainability policies and their practical realization in teaching, learning, and organizational culture.​

Across the MENA region, recent scholarship highlights that sustainability education cannot rely on global frameworks alone. Global SDGs, ESG criteria, or international competence templates provide useful structure but are difficult to implement without significant contextual adaptation (Onyeaka and Akinsemolu, 2025). Highly centralized educational systems, limited coordination across institutions, and outdated teaching methods restrict meaningful integration of environmental and sustainability concepts into curricula (Onyeaka and Akinsemolu, 2025). Environmental education is often treated as additive or extra-curricular rather than embedded in core teaching, so students encounter sustainability in fragmented ways that limit competence development (Onyeaka and Akinsemolu, 2025). Resource shortages, limited teacher training, and a lack of long-term strategic planning further prevent sustainability from becoming a core educational component (Onyeaka and Akinsemolu, 2025).​

Beyond structural issues, there is a misalignment between the global language of sustainability and regional cultural realities and values (Ibrahim et al., 2025). When environmental terminology is framed through locally meaningful dimensions, such as social cohesion, moderation in resource use, collective welfare, and cultural continuity, it resonates better than purely technical or Western framing (Ibrahim et al., 2025). Initiatives grounded in cultural identity, heritage preservation, and community participation are more likely to achieve public legitimacy and long-term engagement (Ibrahim et al., 2025). Sustainability in the region is thus deeply rooted, shaped by social norms, meanings, and collective moral commitments, yet there is limited research on how to embed it within the context of higher education.​

The challenges of local relevance are also visible in curricula, as they often fail to address MENA-specific environmental issues such as water scarcity, food insecurity, and desertification (Onyeaka and Akinsemolu, 2025). Without such contextual grounding, students struggle to see how global concepts relate to issues that affect their communities. Scholars therefore call for an “all-inclusive green curriculum” designed around locally relevant issues (Onyeaka and Akinsemolu, 2025, p. 1357). Taken together, this demonstrates that there is no one-size-fits-all sustainability competence framework. For models to be effective, they must align with local cultural, governance, and environmental realities; otherwise, sustainability risks remain abstract, symbolic, or disconnected from public behavior and institutional practices. Recent work on sustainability competences for the digital age (e.g. AlDhaen, 2023) highlights emerging skills such as digital literacy, adaptability, and future-oriented learning, which complement, but extend beyond, the practice-based competences examined in this study, and point to valuable directions for future research.

In response to these challenges, SPT mediates as a conceptual bridge between international frameworks and local realities, because it views a behavior as socially shared practices (Shove et al., 2012). It helps explore how sustainability is represented through the interaction of routines, infrastructures, meanings, and competences that are socially shared and sustained in everyday life. Every practice is made up of three interrelated elements: meanings (shared ideas, values, and cultural understandings that give a practice purpose), materials (physical tools, infrastructures, and technologies that make it possible), and competences (skills and know-how) required to perform it (Shove et al., 2012; Reckwitz, 2002). When these elements align, practices become embedded and stable; when misaligned, practices may weaken or change (Hargreaves, 2011).

Applied to sustainability, SPT redirects attention from simply increasing awareness to realigning global concepts into local shared meanings that make a sustainable behavior part of everyday life. It hence provides a conceptual lens for understanding how sustainability in higher education can move beyond abstract knowledge to become a lived, embedded practice. By analyzing how meanings (ethical and cultural understandings of responsibility), materials (curricula, campus systems, tools), and competences (skills and applied knowledge) interact, the study explores everyday practices related to sustainability that reflect local moral and cultural values rather than imported concepts. This enables the development of sustainability curricula and pedagogies that are contextually grounded and culturally resonant, fostering more meaningful engagement and transformation in a context such as Egypt.

The existing literature identifies key gaps in embedding sustainability competences in emerging-market higher education: the disconnect of global ESD frameworks from local cultural values, limited faculty and institutional engagement in practical curricular integration, and the underutilization of theoretical lenses such as SPT that emphasize a practice-based approach. Past studies highlight local ethical values as critical for meaningful ESD (Tam, 2025; Ibrahim et al., 2025), yet few adopt them in curricular frameworks that map practice-based competences into sustainability education. There is also a limited understanding of how transformative sustainability pedagogy can be effectively localized within the specific cultural contexts of business higher education in the MENA region.

Addressing these gaps requires frameworks and pedagogies that locate sustainability through culturally grounded ethical meanings and supportive institutional materials, thereby helping to bridge the divide between policy and practice.​ Therefore, this study poses the following research questions to guide inquiry into how sustainability competences can be effectively embedded in an Egyptian business higher education context:

In responding to these questions, the study applies SPT to a leading Egyptian business school context, aiming to contribute theoretically and practically to more effective and locally relevant ESD strategies.

This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory design to investigate how sustainability competences can be culturally embedded within Egyptian higher education institutions using Social Practice Theory (SPT). The methodological design was structured to address the three research questions through the lens of SPT. Semi-structured interviews were designed to elicit data corresponding to theory elements (meanings, materials, and competences), thereby enabling systematic exploration of how sustainability is perceived, enacted, and localized (RQ1). The identification of barriers and enablers across institutional roles emerged inductively from these practice elements (RQ2). Finally, the synthesis of themes into the Sustainability Terminology Matrix and the localized competence model represents the operational application of SPT for curriculum design (RQ3).

A purposive sampling strategy selected 11 participants directly involved in curriculum development, teaching, and learning at the American University in Cairo (AUC), chosen for its reputation, accreditation, and sustainability integration (Palinkas et al., 2015; Patton, 2015).

The sample comprised three faculty members who are also content and curriculum developers (including one who employs community-based learning), an associate dean with decision-making responsibilities, the director of the Office of Sustainability as a key stakeholder, and five alumni staff members, most holding master's degrees, with experience across undergraduate and graduate business programs. This mix enabled exploration of sustainability meanings, materials, and competences across institutional roles, supporting RQ1 to RQ3.

Interviews were conducted in English, lasting between 45 and 75 min, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with consent. Participants were recruited via targeted emails and referrals, targeting those actively engaged in sustainability initiatives. The semi-structured guide probed SPT elements: sustainability meanings, campus materials/infrastructures, and perceived competences/practices. Data collection spanned three months, with saturation reached after interview 11 (no new themes emerging; see Glaser and Strauss, 2017). Ethical approval was obtained, and confidentiality was maintained throughout.

Reflexive thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke (2021), emphasizing the researcher's interpretive role in exploring cultural and practice-based dimensions of sustainability competences. Analysis proceeded iteratively: (1) familiarization with transcripts, (2) inductive initial coding of sustainability experiences, (3) grouping codes under SPT categories (meanings, materials, competences), (4) theme development, and (5) refinement via team discussion. By interview 9, meanings codes stabilized; by interview 11, materials and competences repeated, confirming saturation. Credibility was enhanced through a second researcher review of transcripts/codes, discrepancy resolution, and reflexive memos documenting analytic decisions and the lead researcher's positionality as a national educator.

Codes and themes were subsequently mapped onto the meanings–materials–competences triad to ensure analytical consistency with SPT and AUC to support theory-driven interpretation rather than purely descriptive thematization.

The findings reveal that sustainability integration in higher education is shaped by global frameworks, local cultural values, institutional policies, and practical engagement (RQ1). Participants shared successes and challenges in applying sustainability concepts, emphasizing ethical relevance, experiential learning, and material structures enabling sustainable actions. Using SPT, four key themes emerged showing how meanings, materials, and competences interact, sometimes reinforcing behaviors, other times leaving them fragmented.

Sustainability practices form a tapestry of overlapping efforts: global (SDGs, ESG), local (ethical values), and institutional (policies). SPT reveals uneven intersections: meanings gain depth with local ethics, materials support when accessible, and competences emerge through experience.

• Theme 1: Fragmented understandings without cultural anchors

Interviews indicate that sustainability is experienced less as a coherent philosophy and more as fragmented, externally framed concepts. Students and administrators frequently referred to globalized terms such as carbon footprint and green practices, which were often detached from lived cultural and ethical contexts. As a result, sustainability was commonly reduced to visible, short-term actions rather than an embedded way of thinking or acting. As one participant noted, sustainability was “just another phrase,” while another described it as “not the perfect mustalaḥ [term] for our students.”

Administrators emphasized alignment with global sustainability frameworks such as the SDGs and ESG metrics, which shape universities' international positioning. As one faculty noted, “… the global rankings for higher education rank universities based on the SDGs and ESGs.” On the other side, students described them as distant from their lived realities, remaining symbolic rather than leading to a meaningful behavioral change. Hence, many participants highlighted that the framing of sustainability could be made more relevant, especially when linked to familiar values such as responsibility, fairness, and accountability. One interviewee emphasized that sustainability involved being “responsible”, “accountable”, and “transparent”. Similarly, others noted that it becomes meaningful when students can see its connection to concepts such as avoiding waste and moderation, which were frequently mentioned as cultural priorities that reflect sustainable behavior.

Students also noted that incentives and convenience strongly influenced their sustainable behaviors. As one remarked: “If I carpool, I know I'll find a parking spot.” Students “always want something in return. So, we combine the values talk with incentives,” said a sustainability officer. Hence, aligning meaning (responsibility, ethics) with material facilitation (designated parking, free reusables) transforms intention into routine.

Viewed through SPT, these findings reveal that meanings remain unstable. Materials (policies, infrastructure, etc.) exist, but are sometimes underutilized, and the competences needed to embed sustainability in daily routines are still emerging. Therefore, global frameworks provide the scaffolding, but without moral resonance, they risk remaining detached from students' lives. Transforming sustainability from foreign jargon into familiar ethical practice provides an important framing for actionable outcomes.

• Theme 2: Language and Local Meaning

Language also proved central to shaping how sustainability was understood. Across interviews, participants noted that terms such as “welfare development”, “social commitment”, and “human flourishing” resonated more strongly than “sustainability” or “sustainable development”. Again, this reframing aligned with the local ethical and moral emphasis on human welfare and community care, extending the notion of sustainability to include accessibility and inclusiveness, such as initiatives supporting visually impaired students.

Educators emphasized that the terminology used in teaching can either foster engagement from students or unintentionally distance them. One professor noted that the term “Sustainability Development” itself has become unappealing, as students associate it with charity work. The professor shared: “using alternative titles such as ‘Social Commitment’, ‘Social Innovation’ or ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ is more appealing.” This makes the course more dynamic, progressive and better aligned with tangible impacts. As she explained, the new generation is looking for language that signals creativity, initiative, and relevance, rather than formality or obligation. Hence, institutions need to transition away from the older terminology to capture the interest or motivation of modern students.

Students also often emphasized that they felt passionate or interested in sustainability when it was connected to real social problems, local communities, and hands-on collaborative projects. Multiple professors noted that when they framed sustainability in a way that links it to welfare, civic action, or innovation, students tended to approach assignments with a stronger sense of purpose. When the language shifted from technical to locally meaningful ideas, sustainability felt more like a reflection of their shared values, everyday concerns, and their professional aspirations rather than an external framework they had to abide by. Framing sustainability in welfare-oriented and ethically grounded language localized and strengthened emotional and cultural connection. It also motivated students to be more engaged with the topic.

From an SPT perspective, language operates as a vehicle for carrying meanings. It shapes how students interpret institutional policies and frameworks (materials) and how they enact sustainability in practice (competences). When sustainability is framed through welfare, fairness, and ethical responsibility rather than distant global terminology, it becomes easier for students to recognize its relevance in their own contexts. This reframing helps bridge the gap between global frameworks and local lived experiences and cultural jargon.

• Theme 3: The Campus as an “Open Laboratory”

Sustainability appeared sporadically in coursework, usually as brief mentions in lectures or modules rather than as an integrated learning outcome. A student noted: “Sustainability is something we see once in a while, in a campaign… but in class, it's not there, it's not linked to what we study.” They also mentioned that their exposure mainly was through extracurricular campaigns and community-based initiatives, such as tree-planting events, recycling days, or social-media drives, which they perceived as more authentic and impactful. Participants described community-based projects as the most meaningful way to engage with sustainability, as they adopted a “do” rather than “learn about” sustainability, fostering hands-on understanding and engagement. Hence, experiential learning resonates with students' ethical and cultural values and strengthens their sense of purpose.

One professor discussed designing a research-writing course around the SDGs, allowing students to select sustainability topics of personal interest and analyze them through a problem-solution framework. He noted that anchoring assignments in real-world sustainability issues “made the research quite purposeful for them,” as students examined global and local cases and generated context-specific recommendations. The course also incorporated community-based learning through partnerships with Egyptian NGOs, where students met with NGO representatives, conducted site visits, and worked on tailoring global sustainability solutions to local contexts, being mindful of financial feasibility and available infrastructure. In his course, students felt “much more meaningful and purposeful, because they were actually doing something for a particular purpose,” rather than completing a standard academic assignment. By sharing recommendations with NGOs, students experienced sustainability as an applied, socially grounded practice, helping them become active contributors rather than passive learners.

Initiatives such as water and energy dashboards, carbon inventories, recycling stations, and irrigation tours were highlighted as examples of turning campus operations into pedagogical tools. A staff member explained: “We want the campus to be an open lab… students can see, touch, and learn from operations.” When students participated in such initiatives (i.e. writing briefs, conducting audits, or running guided tours), they developed competencies by directly engaging with the materials of sustainability. Leadership and institutional coordination were consistently cited as prerequisites for genuine progress. Participants stressed that sustainability could not be confined to symbolic campaigns; it required integration across operations, academics, and administration. The “open laboratory” model reflected this integration by connecting institutional systems and classroom learning through tangible experiences.

Progress was visible when tied to measurable impacts or quantifiable outcomes: utility savings, carbon audits, and performance reporting. One administrator summarized: “You measure in order to manage.” These forms of evidence strengthened the credibility of sustainability projects within the institution and helped students see how ethical responsibility and management come together in real decision-making. Continuity was key: every year, a new cohort arrived with little knowledge of previous initiatives, so sustainability had to be constantly re-seeded through orientation tours, green guides, plaza demonstrations, and student platform partnerships. Embedding these activities into course syllabi and institutional evaluation systems can help maintain consistent alignment between learning, campus operations, and measurable results. From an SPT perspective, such metrics serve as tangible tools that reinforce the values of accountability and responsibility. This helps turn sustainability from a series of short-term initiatives into an integrated and lasting institutional practice.

• Theme 4: Purpose-Driven Mindset Through Engagement with Workforce and Employers

Faculty members highlighted the challenge of connecting sustainability with students' professional aspirations. This is particularly evident in business disciplines where students often enter university with a profit-maximization mindset, struggling to connect sustainability to studied disciplines. She suggested that exposing students to real-world examples, such as Egypt's financial regulator requiring sustainability disclosures or inviting guest speakers to discuss how knowledge on sustainability boosts hiring chances, move sustainability from being a buzzword to a professional necessity. The faculty also suggested embedding sustainability discussions within core business courses (finance, HR, accounting) as a means of reinforcing competences through discipline-specific application.

Another faculty explained: “This concept should be packaged in a way that makes a better link with different majors. It should be better related to each distinct major (economics, psychology, etc.).” This perspective highlights that sustainability education must go beyond general awareness to engage students through specific topics that define their chosen fields. Tailoring sustainability content to disciplinary contexts helps students internalize it as part of their professional identity rather than as a supplementary concept.

Table 1 synthesizes how themes address RQs through SPT elements, showing local ethical meanings stabilize competence development:

Through SPT, meanings anchored in ethical and cultural values, such as fairness, social welfare, accountability, and collective responsibility, give sustainability local and moral resonance. Materials such as dashboards, incentives, disclosure decrees, and campus infrastructure provide concrete anchors that allow these values to be enacted. Competences, ranging from sorting waste, linking ESG to finance, facilitating ethical discussion, and participating in community or campus initiatives, apply learning and make practices repeatable.

Where alignment occurred (e.g. incentive-backed carpooling, ethics-based finance courses), students adopted practices durably. Where it failed (e.g. isolated electives, abstract branding), students disengaged or defaulted to unsustainable routines. These findings highlight that when sustainability is reframed through familiar values, supported by tangible resources, and enacted through everyday competences, it becomes an embedded institutional practice rather than periodic efforts.

Building on the empirical insights and SPT framework, the Sustainability Terminology Matrix represents a key practical contribution and a conceptual tool to operationalize the localization of global sustainability frameworks through culturally grounded ethical meanings, institutional materials, and competence development (RQ3). Inductively developed from the qualitative findings, it has not yet been piloted in full-course implementation. Its purpose is to demonstrate how global sustainability frameworks can be interpreted and adapted through culturally and contextually relevant lenses. The matrix offers a structured way to visualize how sustainability concepts may be localized, but it remains a work-in-progress pending further empirical testing and refining in real education settings.

The idea of the matrix was derived from the study's data by synthesizing codes and themes related to language, cultural anchors, sustainable practices, and competences. These qualitative insights were organized in categories and mapped along two dimensions: meanings-materials-competences and local-global terminology. The goal of the matrix is to offer educators, curriculum developers, and institutions a practical tool for localizing sustainability competences. It can guide how sustainability is introduced in classrooms, reflected in assignments, or embedded in campus initiatives. Future work will involve co-design workshops with faculty and students to refine the categories and test the matrix in specific courses, followed by empirical evaluation of learning outcomes and expanding it to include additional localized alternatives to global frameworks. Ultimately, the matrix is meant to become a flexible tool that helps universities bridge global sustainability frameworks with the cultural realities, ethical responsibilities, and everyday experiences of students in the region. Below is an example of the initial development of the Sustainability Terminology Matrix adapted for SDGs 4, 11, and 12, as informed by this research.

The focus on SDGs 4, 11, and 12 as strategic starting points is because they intersect most with the core functions of business education and campus-based practices explored through SPT. Specifically, these goals align with curriculum design and learning processes (SDG 4), institutional and community engagement (SDG 11), and everyday consumption and operational practices within universities (SDG 12). Together, they represent points of intersection where meanings, materials, and competences are most visibly enacted and therefore empirically observable within the studied context. While other SDGs, such as gender equality (SDG 5) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10), are equally important in the local context, they were not included in the initial matrix because the empirical data did not yield sufficiently distinct practice-level configurations to operationalize them within the meanings–materials–competences framework at this stage. Rather than exclusions, these goals are viewed as natural extensions of the proposed framework, to be explored in future research as additional intersections emerge across curricula, institutional practices, and social engagement.

The proposed matrix offers directional guidance for academics and curriculum designers, as well as for academic leaders and policymakers responsible for institutional governance, curriculum oversight, and sustainability integration.

Global frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ESG standards, and accreditation criteria provide a shared language for sustainability in higher education. Yet these frameworks are often imported without adaptation to emerging markets, resulting in limited integration and weak resonance with students (Abozaied, 2018; Bonilla-Jurado et al., 2024). Our findings are consistent with this view, as interviews show that when global frameworks are transferred to contexts like Egypt, they can appear abstract or disconnected from the ethical and cultural realities that shape students' and educators' daily lives. Within business education, these risks reduce sustainability to a formality rather than an embedded, value-driven practice. Ensuring genuine engagement means sustainability education must be rooted in shared ethical principles and local narratives.

Furthermore, sustainability education is strengthened when tied to practical realities, including employer expectations, regulatory requirements, and tangible campus initiatives. Business schools and universities seeking lasting impact should therefore adapt global frameworks through the lens of both local ethics and applied professional practice, as ESD models fail when isolated from local institutional and cultural realities (Bonilla-Jurado et al., 2024; Manteaw, 2008). This dual approach moves sustainability education from abstraction to action: students are challenged to examine resource use, governance, or community benefit through ethical lenses that resonate with their lived experiences. Pedagogical strategies such as community-based projects, ethical case studies, and simulations equip students with the ability to enact sustainability as purpose-driven professionals, consistent with evidence on experiential competence development (Noor et al., 2024; Hedden et al., 2017).

SPT is a powerful framework for understanding sustainability not as individual attitudes but as practices shaped by social meanings, material infrastructures, and shared competences (Shove et al., 2012; Reckwitz, 2002). The findings demonstrate the application of this theory. Meanings are supplied by ethical frames and collective values; materials include university policies, incentives, and infrastructure; and competences are built through practical experience and ethical reflection. Material features such as recycling stations, carpooling incentives, or water-saving dashboards only succeed when their use is anchored in shared responsibility and care, suggesting that culturally grounded meanings are pivotal for adoption, as the literature also argues (Tam, 2025; Ibrahim et al., 2025). Core sustainability competences develop through active participation in projects, collective action, and ongoing dialogue between institutional leadership and the campus community.

By empirically exploring SPT elements within an Egyptian business school (RQ1), this study addresses RQ3 by extending the theory for emerging-market pedagogy. Local ethical anchors (fairness, moderation, welfare) become core meaning components, organizing how sustainability practices are interpreted (RQ1), overcoming barriers (RQ2), and enabling culturally resonant design (RQ3). These values shape how students, faculty, and administrators define what counts as “responsible” or “good” practice in their everyday decisions and thus give sustainability education its moral and cultural content. At the same time, these ethical anchors indirectly influence which “materials”, such as community-based projects, campus initiatives, or accountability mechanisms are prioritized in the institution; and, which “competences” are cultivated through teaching, including collaboration, stewardship, and ethical reasoning. In linking local ethical anchors to SPT's meanings–materials–competences, the framework treats them not as external antecedents, but as the culturally embedded elements that organize how sustainability practices are interpreted, supported, and learned within the business school context. In doing so, the research contributes to the field by demonstrating how SPT can be utilized and adapted to drive culturally resonant and institutionally embedded sustainability education. The matrix (Table 2) and model (Figure 1) operationalize this SPT extension, directly addressing RQ3 by providing curriculum tools to translate global frameworks into localized competences, bridging the policy-practice gap identified in findings and literature.

Figure 1 presents a three-level conceptual framework for contextualizing sustainability competences in higher education. This model situates Egyptian business education at the intersection of:

1. Global sustainability frameworks (e.g. SDGs, ESG metrics): guide what institutions are expected to teach and report, but require adaptation to avoid disconnects as documented in the literature (Abozaied, 2018).

2. Locally grounded ethical and cultural values: determine how global benchmarks are interpreted and enacted, in alignment with multiple regional studies (Tam, 2025; Ibrahim et al., 2025).

3. Institutional materials and practices: identify essential bridging policies and practices in higher education (El-Sherbiny et al., 2022; Décamps et al., 2017).

At the heart of sustainability in higher education lies the challenge and the opportunity of its localization. To move beyond abstraction, it is recommended that universities develop context-sensitive approaches that embed global sustainability principles with the lived culture, ethics, and practices of their communities.

The proposed model (see Figure 1) is composed of three interrelated levels plus moderators:

1. Predictors: these are the foundations for the desired sustainable action and are the drivers that create the enabling environment in which sustainability education is developed and delivered. These include:

   • Local Ethical Anchors and Cultural Values: moral principles and shared beliefs that provide the value framework for how sustainability is understood, prioritized, and legitimized in each setting. They answer the question: “Why should sustainability matter here?” and set the compass for local educational efforts.

   • Global Sustainability Frameworks: international standards and targets that offer a shared language and objectives but must be adapted to be meaningful in local contexts.

   • Institutional Alignment, Curriculum Design Tools, and Campus/Community Practices: the organizational, pedagogical, and experiential infrastructure, policies, and leadership support, which provide the material and operational support needed for sustainability efforts to emerge.

Predictors provide both the “why” (values and legitimacy) and the “what/how” (tools, supports, and frameworks) for sustainability education.

1. Mediators: these are socially embedded practices that aim to explain how the predictors above are translated into actual change. In our model, this is not an individual psychological process but rather a collective, social, and practice-based mechanism. This includes group projects, student organization activities, collective problem-solving, and regular participation in campus or community sustainability initiatives. Mediators are where the ethical logic, institutional frameworks, and curricular supports provided by the predictors come to life through action. They mediate abstract intention and practical outcome.

   • Here, what matters is not attitudes alone, but the actual envisioning of sustainability as a shared and normalized part of institutional culture.

2. Outcome: is the end goal we aspire to reach, a localized sustainability education. This should reflect the alignment between predictors and mediators to produce cohesive, context-relevant content. This will enable the achievement of a “Localized Sustainability Competence”, defined as the ability of students (and faculty) to understand, value, and routinely implement sustainability principles in ways that reflect the unique ethical, social, and institutional context in which they are embedded.

3. Moderators: are the shaping factors for effectiveness, such as the strength of local values, institutional maturity, and faculty competence that shape the strength or direction of the relationships between predictors, mediators, and outcome.

Put in a relational perspective, local ethical anchors (as predictors) → Inform the legitimacy, meaning, and priorities for sustainability action. Socially embedded practices (as mediators) → Enact and translate values, policies, and frameworks into lived, observable routines and institutional culture. Finally, localized sustainability competence (Outcome) → Represents the successful internalization and durable application of sustainability in context, as evidenced by collective behaviors and engagement. Moderators → Shape whether the translation from value and policy to practice and outcome is strong, weak, or variable.

Hence, this approach positions sustainability not as an external import but as an evolving, culturally rooted educational practice. Integrating “measure to manage” principles (i.e. aligning measurement and accountability with ethical values) further ensures sustainability is not merely aspirational, but evidence-based and actionable.

Based on the findings, sustainability in higher education is most effectively integrated when global frameworks are adapted to local ethical and cultural contexts, and when practices are supported by aligned meanings, materials, and competences. To support this integration, it is recommended that universities adopt strategies that bridge international sustainability discourse with local moral values and students lived experiences. It is hence recommended to:

1. Develop a Sustainability Terminology Matrix and Integrate into Curriculum

This shared ethical vocabulary can guide curriculum, help faculty translate abstract concepts into culturally grounded anchors, and support institutional communication by framing sustainability in ways that resonate with students and families. The development of the Sustainability Terminology Matrix should follow a set of clear guidelines. Guided by findings, the matrix should be co-created with faculty, students, and practitioners to ensure that terms are both academically accurate and culturally resonant and relevant to students. Next, we propose that each global sustainability concept (e.g. SDG 12: “Responsible Consumption and Production”) be paired with its local ethical equivalent and its professional application. It is suggested that the matrix be periodically reviewed and expanded as new sustainability priorities, courses, or institutional initiatives emerge.

In practice, the matrix can be applied through the aforementioned “living laboratory” activities that link classroom learning to campus and community systems. Moreover, students from different disciplines could collaborate on projects on campus. These applications transform the campus into an interactive, value-based laboratory where sustainability is continuously practiced and observed. Embedding these concepts ensures sustainability becomes part of students' habitual academic and professional practice, rather than a peripheral topic. For example, a discussion on circular economy can be introduced through the lens of resource efficiency and social responsibility, linking global sustainability principles with local priorities of using resources efficiently and avoiding waste.

1. Reframe Sustainability as Lived Practice through Social Practice Theory

ESD should be experienced as a daily practice rather than treated as an abstract theory. Educational design should emphasize ethical narratives such as social and environmental responsibility, fairness, and stewardship; tangible materials such as case studies, guest speakers, community projects, and local business partnerships; and practical competences should be developed through applied projects, experiential learning, and routine engagement in management, marketing, and accounting.

1. Foster Collaborative Engagement and Institutional Alignment

Structured dialogue between administrators, faculty, and students can co-create initiatives that align institutional strategies with students lived cultural and ethical values. Embedding sustainability into institutional operations, campaigns, and core courses ensures continuity and avoids fragmented or episodic engagement. Faculty training should complement this approach, equipping educators with strategies to model sustainability as a lived practice and cultivate competences among students and peers.

1. Anchor Sustainability through Employer Collaboration and Operational Reinforcement

Collaborating with employers reinforces the professional relevance of sustainability, linking ethical and environmental responsibility to career readiness. Real-world cases, such as sustainability reporting requirements and corporate sustainability strategies, provide practical anchoring. Complementary institutional campaigns, course branding, and operational tools, such as dashboards, recycling stations, and slogans like “Plant the seed, even today” or “Know it. See it. Do it: Open Lab”, further reinforce sustainable practices. Institutional measurement should follow the principle of “measure to manage,” combining accountability, pedagogy, and ethics.

Building on these recommendations, future research should focus on how sustainability is enacted in daily routines rather than just attitudes or values. This practice-centered approach aligns with SPT and provides a stronger basis for understanding effective interventions. Key areas include:

1. Validating the conceptual model: Examine whether integrating global sustainability frameworks with local ethical and cultural principles, mediated through SPT dimensions of meanings, materials, and competences, leads to measurable changes in student behaviors, institutional practices, and curriculum adoption.

2. Testing the Sustainability Terminology Matrix: Pilot the matrix in diverse cultural contexts to evaluate resonance, usability, and its capacity to bridge global and local discourses.

3. Regional comparisons: Investigate convergences and divergences across contexts such as Egypt, Gulf States, and Malaysia, highlighting how regional ethical and cultural values anchor sustainability practices differently.

4. From symbolism to practice: Explore how framing sustainability as an ethical and social responsibility affects practices compared to treating it as a global “Western” agenda.

5. Longitudinal and mixed-method studies: Track the impact of interventions on sustainability routines over time and combine surveys, observations, and interviews to assess both outcomes and underlying mechanisms.

This would provide evidence for the model's applicability and generalizability, helping institutions embed sustainability in culturally grounded and operationally effective ways. In this research, SPT is presented as a conceptual model rather than an empirically tested one, its dimensions and application should be further examined through longitudinal and comparative studies across different institutions and cultural settings.