Against this background, demands for action and collaboration for sustainability are increasingly heard. The SDGs exemplify concerted global efforts to act for a better present and a flourishing future (United Nations, 2015). Education is included in the SDGs because it plays a vital role as an enabler and a pivotal point for societal change. SDG 4 includes a target (4.7.) in which ESD is explicitly referred to. Furthermore, UNESCO has set a roadmap for ESD aligned with the SDGs (ESD for 2030), which builds upon previous efforts and emphasizes the need for concrete action. From 2014 to 2019, UNESCO deployed a Global Action Programme for ESD (GAP-ESD) in which five Priority Action Areas (PAAs) were defined, also present in the ESD for 2030 roadmap. While students are at the center of the education efforts and different frameworks of sustainability competences have been elaborated for them (Rieckmann, 2011; Wiek et al., 2011; UNESCO, 2017; Brundiers et al., 2021; Leal Filho et al., 2021), it is clear that educators influence how the learning processes occur. From the selection of content to the implementation of pedagogical strategies and the construction of a respectful and empowering learning atmosphere, educators can favor the development of sustainability competences. In line with this, one PAA is related to building capacities for educators (UNESCO, 2014, 2020), as they “can help learners understand the complex choices that sustainable development requires and motivate them to transform themselves and society” (UNESCO, 2020, p. 30).

The policy mission of encouraging educators to become sustainability champions aligns with academic literature. It has been acknowledged that the ability and willingness of academic staff to support learning processes that lead to transformative changes largely determine their success (Hegarty, 2008). However, engaging educators in ESD is not free of challenges. An analysis in the upper secondary Swedish context showed that regarding ESD “the most common obstacles were that the teachers lacked inspiring examples of how to include SD in their teaching and that they lacked the necessary expertise about SD” (Borg et al., 2012, p. 185). The authors recommend offering additional training tailored to different disciplines’ specific requirements (Borg et al., 2012). The case of pre-service secondary teachers in Malaysia enrolled in a Biology Teaching Methods course showed that even if teachers have positive attitudes toward the environment and are ready to integrate ESD into biology teaching, they might lack sufficient environmental knowledge (Esa, 2010). It is also believed that the implementation of ESD through international initiatives has been impeded due to the absence of clear guidance on its execution (Vare et al., 2019).

At the level of higher education, there are also barriers for educators to advance ESD. These can be “lack of time and financial resources, lack of deep understanding of sustainability, current curriculum structures and ways of delivery, academic pressures, external factors, lack of organizational support and existing organizational conditions block their engagement,” (p. 79) as reported by Cebrián et al. (2015) for the UK. The challenge also remains of bringing ESD into established disciplines, as described by Lans et al. (2014), who present the case of sustainable entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, where educational scholars treat education for sustainability (EfS) and entrepreneurship education separately and there is lack evidence of any attempt to explore their intersection. A study performed in Australia showed low implementation of EfS (its pedagogies and teaching methods) and suggests that it “has not yet prompted academics to move toward pedagogical innovation” (Christie et al., 2013, p. 405). According to Busquets et al. (2021), there was an identification in Spain of the need for training faculty in sustainability competences, as well as a lack of awareness on their part. As a solution, it was suggested that training be provided to faculty in sustainability competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainability and that opportunities for discussion, reflection, and collaboration among teachers be promoted to increase their awareness and motivation.

There are also successful cases of incorporation of ESD in higher education. In contrast to the aforementioned difficulties found in the field of entrepreneurship and business within the Dutch context, a Swedish initiative proposes to teach for sustainability using a strategy of business model innovation that pursues not only profit but also social and ecological positive impact (Hoveskog et al., 2018). In Spain, Tejedor et al. (2019) conducted a study exploring diverse pedagogical strategies to promote sustainability competences, providing synthesized objectives, foundations, and stages that offer valuable guidance for educators. Despite the positive examples, educators at all levels can still contribute more to ESD given the gravity of today’s sustainability challenges. To achieve this, they need to acquire knowledge and develop ESD competences to implement teaching strategies effectively.

As mentioned before, the discussion around sustainability competences for students has already advanced significantly. Since the last decade, different frameworks have been developed. In the beginnings of the last decade, de Haan (2010) provided a “Model of Competence for ESD in the formal education sector” (p. 315) based on the concept of Gestaltungskompetenz, related to the capacity to act and solve problems. According to the authors, “those who possess this competence can help, through active participation, to modify and shape the future of society, and to guide its social, economic, technological and ecological changes along the lines of sustainable development” (de Haan, 2010, p. 320). This competence is divided into 12 sub-competences grouped in three clusters related to the Interactive use of media and methods, Interacting in socially heterogeneous groups, and Acting autonomously. One year after, Wiek et al. (2011) proposed a framework based on a systematic literature review and suggesting a set of key competences in sustainability (systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic and interpersonal competences) linked to basic competences such as critical thinking and communication competences. The same year, Rieckmann (2011) published the results of a Delphi study with the participation of experts from Germany, Great Britain, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico, proposing 12 key competences for sustainability. These frameworks were integrated by UNESCO (2017), proposing eight competences: Systems thinking, Anticipatory, Normative, Strategic, Collaboration, Critical thinking, Self-awareness and Integrated problem-solving. Nonetheless, an interesting discussion about an agreed-upon framework of key competences in sustainability continues, as shown by Brundiers et al. (2021).

An influential discussion about ESD competences among educators unfolded in 2012 when the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) released the report Learning for the future: Competences in Education for Sustainable Development. The proposed framework integrated what were considered essential characteristics of ESD, including a holistic approach, envisioning change, and achieving transformation, along with categories that reflect a wide range of learning experiences (Learning to know, Learning to do, Learning to live together, and Learning to be) (UNECE, 2012). On the academic front, Rauch and Steiner (2013) addressed the lack of exploration of competences in teacher education and introduced the KOM-BiNE ESD competence model, categorizing competences into knowing, acting, valuing, and feeling, while Bertschy et al. (2013) presented two sustainability competence models exploring their benefit for teacher education and further education and arguing that “competence models should focus on profession-specific core competencies if they are to be used as a basis for the conception of educational offers in the field of ESD in education and further education of teachers” (p. 5067). In 2017, an additional framework of professional competences in sustainability from a complexity perspective was proposed by Garcia et al. (2017), drawing on the six categories of complexity (connections, dialogue, creativity, innovation, critical thinking and uncertainty), the four domains of UNECE (Learning to know, Learning to live together, Learning to be and Learning to do) and 24 professional competencies in education for sustainability from the perspective of complexity.

As can be seen, different frameworks of competences have been suggested to help educators guide their professional development. Corres et al. (2020) systematically explored different ESD competences frameworks for educators. They found Critical Thinking, Participation in Community, and Connections to be the most included competences in the frameworks, while competences such as Emotions Management, Futures, Achieving Transformation are less frequently covered. Leal Filho et al. (2021) conducted a study across multiple countries to determine the extent to which teaching staff value sustainable development competencies in different higher education institutions that belong to the Inter-University Sustainable Development Research Programme (IUSDRP). Respondents showed a high degree of awareness of, and agreement with, the four categories proposed by UNECE that underlay the ESD competences: learn to know, learn to live together, learn to do, and learn to be (UNECE, 2012). However, it was suggested once again that providing educators with access to training and capacity building programs can enable them to effectively address and tackle the challenges associated with teaching sustainable development.

The Rounder Sense of Purpose (RSP) competences framework aims to meet the demand for offering assistance to educators in ESD with regard to content and teaching and learning methods (Rieckmann and Barth, 2022). It suggests 12 competences that correspond to UNECE’s areas of thinking holistically, envisioning change, and achieving transformation, as well as actions of integration, involvement, practice, and reflection, as presented in Table 1. The RSP competences share similarities with frameworks of competences for students such as the one proposed by UNESCO (2017). For example, the Systems competence in the RSP emphasizes the educator’s role in helping learners develop an understanding of the interconnectedness of the world, exploring connections across socioecological systems, and considering the consequences of actions (Millican, 2022). This aligns directly with UNESCO’s Systems thinking competence, described as “the abilities to recognize and understand relationships; to analyze complex systems; to think of how systems are embedded within different domains and different scales; and to deal with uncertainty” (UNESCO, 2017, p. 10). Moreover, direct parallels exist between the Futures and Anticipatory, Values and Normative, and Criticality and Critical thinking competences of the RSP and the respective competences in the UNESCO frameworks. However, it is important to note that the comparison between frameworks should extend beyond a one-to-one assessment of individual competences and focus on the holistic perspective.

Under the RSP framework, the ESD competences are conceived as a mutually supported ensemble (Rieckmann and Barth, 2022). This is consistent with the richness of diversity present in the world (in terms of cultures, species, ecosystems, etc.) and the multitopic spirit of the sustainability discourse. Depending on the circumstances, a problem might require a different mix of concepts, skills and actions to be solved. For this reason, in the RSP framework the educator is seen as “a system with the various competences acting and interacting together in different combinations according to context” (Millican, 2022, p. 40). The importance of pedagogical diversity has also been explored. Lozano et al. (2017, 2019) examined the connection between competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainability in higher education. The authors suggest that utilizing a variety of pedagogical approaches based on the context and discipline of the program or course being taught can enhance the development of these competences (Lozano and Barreiro-Gen, 2022). Thus, the educator must mix and use competences and pedagogical approaches in different combinations and intensities to respond to a specific context (Millican, 2022).

The RSP competences framework is not limited to teacher education, as it is applicable to educators in any sector or educational context (Rieckmann and Barth, 2022). Millican (2022) suggests that this framework provides a feasible set of competences for educators of sustainable development, including those in universities. As there is a need of operationalization of the competence frameworks (Rieckmann and Barth, 2022), another characteristic of the RSP framework is that it seeks concretion via learning outcomes, underpinning components (see Table 2 for an example of the Action Competence) and exemplary activities available for free¹ (for each competence there are also exemplary activities related to the SDGs) (Millican, 2022).

Scherak and Rieckmann (2020) provide insight into how educators in universities may react to the RSP framework (in the German context). They aimed to determine the competences that university teachers require to work with ESD in higher education and how these competences can be developed through staff training workshops. Data was collected from an initiative consisting of eight workshops over 2 years, where the RSP competences model was used as a guiding framework. Results show that the 12 competences are considered interconnected and relevant for higher education teaching, suggesting that the framework is sound. Nonetheless, they also draw attention to the barriers to developing the competences in educators: lack of time, limited flexibility in what is taught and attracting new audience (i.e., educators that still need to be involved in ESD) are some of the obstacles to overcome. The team that developed the RSP framework also identified potential limitations associated to their approach. For example, they recognize that this operationalization through activities does not necessarily “favor a social constructivist, critical pedagogy in which knowledge is co-constructed and which is designed to empower and develop agency and independence of thought” (Millican, 2022, p. 40) which, for them, is desired in the process of teaching and in ESD in particular.

As evidenced by existing research, the analysis of higher education for sustainability has been rather centered in European countries (Barth and Rieckmann, 2016). After mapping sustainability initiatives in higher education institutions in Latin America, Filho et al. (2021) argue that many universities in the region aim to implement sustainability through different approaches, following a trend of increasing sustainability initiatives observed by Brandli et al. (2010) a decade ago. In terms of priority, Filho and his colleagues identified that campus operations are receiving particular attention, while sustainability-related research and outreach occupy the second place, and sustainability-focused teaching initiatives the third position. The authors point out that this may be because academic staff do not possess the knowledge and ability to connect their lessons to matters of sustainability, as was the case in Bolivia (Ordóñez and Rieß, 2019). This speaks in favor of the relevance of our study.

Our interest in Latin America extends beyond a generic regional comparison (Latin America vs. World) to the controversial dynamics surrounding the region’s development and sustainability concepts. Latin America, shaped by its colonial history and grappling with persistent socioeconomic and power inequalities, views sustainable development (‘desarrollo sostenible’ in Spanish) at times as a hegemonic agenda from the Global North. This is evident in the diverse terminology used; for instance, the adjective sustainable can be translated as ‘sostenible’ (the official UN term) or ‘sustentable’ (representing an opposition or alternative to ‘sostenible’). The term ‘development’ (desarrollo in Spanish) is also contentious due to its frequent association with extractive practices. Thus, four terms are commonly used: Sustentabilidad, Sostenibilidad, Desarrollo sustentable, and Desarrollo sostenible. The trend suggests that the first two reflect a questioning attitude on the global sustainability agenda, while the latter two indicate greater acceptance.

Colombia and Ecuador face notable challenges related to education access and quality. Colombia’s education system has even been criticized for deepening existing inequalities, with limited support from the government leading to a low supply of quality public education. This has resulted in a response from the private sector, which often offers low-quality education (Cárdenas Campo et al., 2021; Wasserman, 2021). Ecuador has also experienced “the establishment of private universities of questionable quality, and the absence of resources to enable public universities to provide appropriate education that met minimum standards” (Rieckmann et al., 2021, p. 552). Nonetheless, Ecuador’s education system (notably higher education) has undergone significant changes since 2008 to improve access and quality in all areas, including training professionals who are aware of their potential to contribute to identify sustainable development solutions (Rieckmann et al., 2021). In Colombia, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development promotes sustainable development, conserving natural resources, and restoring ecosystems for future generations by incorporating environmental education in various types of educational settings (Díaz Monsalve et al., 2021). It can be suggested that environmental education and ESD are increasingly relevant concepts in Colombia and Ecuador, but further efforts are required to achieve real progress in this field (Díaz Monsalve et al., 2021; Rieckmann et al., 2021).

Against this background, we pose the following research question: How do educators from various higher education institutions in Latin American countries (mainly Ecuador and Colombia) perceive their knowledge and competences in teaching for sustainability, and what is their position toward the SDGs?

A total of 197 educators fully answered the survey with an almost perfect balance between female (49%) and male (51%) respondents. This is a sample of experienced educators: 71% have more than 10 years of experience in higher education. More than a third (36%) have more than 20 years of experience. Most of the answers were obtained from the Latin American institutions that participate in the project, namely Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad EAFIT (both in Colombia) and UTN (in Ecuador) (see Table 4.).

Regarding the terminology, most respondents use the UN term ‘desarrollo sostenible’. Both in Colombia and Ecuador this is the most used term, but in Colombia there is a more marked preference than in Ecuador between ‘desarrollo sostenible’ and ‘desarrollo sustentable’. (Colombia 59 vs. 19; Ecuador 37 vs. 24) (see Table 5).

As shown in Table 6, most of the respondents (94.4%) agree (26.9%) or strongly agree (67.5%) that sustainability is important in their field of expertise and 89.9% state that, in their job as educators, they open spaces to discuss environmental issues and their impact on society (41.1% agree, 48.7% strongly agree). Likewise, most of them (89.8%) agree (28.9%) and strongly agree (60.9%) that they are interested in implementing didactic strategies to help students develop sustainability competences and, thus, generate concrete solutions to sustainability problems in their surroundings. In terms of evaluation, the percentage of respondents that indicate to include sustainability criteria for assessing students’ activities and projects is lower (72.6%; 35% agree and 37.6% strongly agree).

78.2% of the respondents do research. Most of the members of this subgroup (82.5%) agree (40.3%) of fully agree (42.2%) that their research is related to sustainability. In terms of the general population, this means that 64.5% of the respondents consider that their research is to some extent related to sustainability. Statistically speaking, Ecuadorian educators who do research tend to find it more strongly related to sustainability (p-value = 0.047).

Tables 7, 8 show the results of the two parts of the instrument used by Leal Filho et al. (2021) implemented in this research, namely those addressing the field of Learning to know—sustainability knowledge (Table 7) and Learning to know—teaching practices (Table 8). Due to an unidentified mistake, one question (item 15 of Table 8) was not present in the questionnaire.

Gender was found to play a role regarding the statements Development decisions should be based on scientific evidence rather than cultural concerns (p-value = 0.000) and Citizens have no power if governments do not promote sustainable practices (p-value = 0.028) as women disagree more with them. Years of experience also showed statistical influence (p-value = 0.009) in terms of the importance given to Learning about your students’ interests, with older educators being more interested. Moreover, the country of residence seemed to have an influence on the statement Science and technology provide all the solutions needed to solve problems caused by unsustainable development (p-value = 0.028), with Ecuadorian agreeing more strongly with it. The difference between Colombia and Ecuador was also statistically significant (p-value = 0.011) regarding the importance given to Engagement in place-based learning (like Service-Learning or context-based learning), with Ecuador giving it more importance.

In general, there has been a positive response toward the SDGs, with 77% of the respondents indicating that they are well familiarized with them, of which 42% agree and 35% totally agree. The years of experience have a statistically significant effect (p-value = 0.035), indicating that younger educators tend to be more familiar with the global agenda. The agreement rate with the statement that SDGs are relevant in their own work field is even higher, with 85% of the respondents agreeing (46% totally agree and 39% agree). Although 74% of the respondents consider their own context when addressing the SDGs in their courses, only 29% fully agree, while 44% agree. The degree of contextualization is also influenced by the country of residence (p-value = 0.043), with Colombian respondents contextualizing less (see Table 9).

As can be seen in Figure 1, SDG4 (Quality Education) appeared as the most addressed by a great difference: 258% more than the one in the second place, SDG13 (Climate Action), i.e., 111 mentions for the first one against 43 mentions for the second one. SDG12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG5 (Gender Equality) also fall into the range of SDG13 with 42, 41, and 40 mentions, respectively.

Regarding the degree of familiarization with the key competences that students could develop in ESD, 32.5% agree and 28.4% strongly agree to be familiarized. There is a statistically relevant difference (p-value = 0.043) between Colombia and Ecuador, with the educators from the latter being more familiar with these competences. When asked to organize in order of importance the key sustainability competences for students declared by UNESCO in 2017, the respondents show a preference for the competences Systems Thinking, Critical Thinking and Self-awareness. The least favored ones are the Normative Thinking, the Integrated problem-solving and the Strategic competencies (see Figure 2).

In terms of the RSP competences (see Figure 3), the one with the highest score was Responsibility (score 85.6), which also registered one of the smallest coefficients of variation (2.4%). The Action competence showed the worst performance (66.0). Even though one if the items of the Action competence (Explore and critically analyze their local natural, social and built environment, including their own institution, as a context for change) had a moderate value (75.1), the two other items (Engage in democratic processes of decision making within a context of sustainability and Develop their agency and their awareness of social, political and economic structures) were amongst the three lowest of the whole sample, together with one item of the Attentiveness competence (Recognize and discuss the urgent need to fundamentally change those human-made systems in order to address such flaws). Respectively, Table 10, 11 show the summary of results for the RSP competences and for the highest and lowest ranked items. All the items and scores for the RSP competences can be found in the Supplementary material.