Scaling Sustainability Learning: Size and Scope Matter

Abstract

Working across scales presents barriers and opportunities to Education for Sustainability (EfS) programmes. It changes the way these programmes are implemented and can provide the tools for addressing systemic problems that have so far eluded localized approaches to sustainability learning. In particular, issues of scale affect the implementation of contemporary EfS through: (i) greater use of communication technologies that can support information exchange and educational programmes across ever-increasing distances; (ii) the development of a broader scope for educational investment from outcomes based around individuals to opportunities for societies and even globally; and (iii) increased emphasis on the intractable nature of complex sustainability issues towards a focus on approaches that can effectively link local and global scales. Decentralized, global networks have emerged in the development, operation and implementation of EfS programmes to capitalize on these advantages and address issues associated with scale. However, there is little documented evidence of the success of decentralized global network approaches or of the inherent barriers and opportunities in scaling up EfS programmes from the local to the global scale. This article examines the concept of ‘scalability’ to develop a theoretical framework for the evaluation of EfS programmes delivered through decentralized global networks.

Keywords

Decentralized networks education for sustainability globalization monitoring and evaluation scalability sustainability learning

Introduction

Increasing recognition of environmental, economic and social issues on a global scale facilitated by advances in information and communication technologies are significant features of what has been termed globalization (United Nations 2003). These trends have also changed the educational demands of individuals, organizations and nations, whereby education is increasingly considered an investment in the collective future of societies and nations, rather than simply the future success of individuals (UNESCO 2002). This has implications for the way educational programmes are conducted—particularly those of international significance and that require an effective combination of local and global perspectives such as those characterized by Education for Sustainability (EfS). The literature of globalization has increasingly focused on the formation of new centres of power (other than centralized governments) and these centres are increasingly affecting the direction and pace of change in the world, partly caused by the integration of broad processes of systemic thinking (Suter, 2003; Weyler, 2004). AtKisson (1999) asserts that a system is simply a collection of separate elements that are connected together to form a coherent whole. For example, Greenpeace International is a systemized global organization, which represents an idea, as opposed to a centralized group of people as in the case of the nation state. Essential to Greenpeace as an internationally dispersed organization is the very idea that they play an integral role in the interface between nature and society, thereby, creating a centre of power beyond that which any centralized government could operate (Weyler, 2004). The development of global networks results from applying the principles of systems to the expansion of a power base.

The implementation of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UN-DESD) provides a timely example of one of the most extensive EfS initiatives to date relying significantly upon a global and decentralized base of power to deliver upon its objectives. The principal objectives of the UN-DESD are the development of robust mechanisms for assessing: (i) global progress in its implementation; and (ii) UNESCO’s own contribution to the implementation of the UN-DESD (UNESCO 2007). Supporting sustainability through education, the UN-DESD seeks to assist the scale at which EfS programmes can be delivered. Specifically, this initiative aims to ‘…engage new and current stakeholders in all the different levels and contexts to create awareness and participation in environmentally sustainable development’ (Mula and Tilbury, 2009). As Mula and Tilbury (2009) note, many stakeholders will already be active contributors to the UN-DESD goals—the challenge will be to involve those with significant influence that are less aware of such issues. The development and facilitation of EfS programmes before and during the UN-DESD have been wide-ranging geographically and differing in scale. An emerging trend has been the application of decentralized global networks to develop and operate EfS programmes. This tendency is likely to proliferate, as communication technologies continue to improve and the benefits of diverse and global perspectives are realized.

Essentially, decentralized networks are an engineered product of globalization, which results from a reduction or removal of barriers amongst national borders, organizations and people. Systemic engineering of networks may result in the flow of information between borders, resulting in stocks of information generated within the network and resulting in feedback loops of information and knowledge between networks. However, globalization and some decentralized global networks may conversely act to restrict the flow of information (e.g., creating monopolies on particular production chains). These varying and resultant systemic trends of information feedback loops manifest themselves as drivers and barriers of projects and influence the outcomes integral to the rapid expansion of global networks. Nevertheless, this is a recent approach and there is little documented evidence of the success of such approaches or the barriers and opportunities for EfS. This article explores approaches that enable information exchange and programmes that aid the development of a broader scope for educational investment. The article covers four core areas: (i) the effect of globalization on enabling information exchange and educational programmes; (ii) the rationale for a broader scope for educational investment; (iii) approaches that effectively link local and global scales; and (iv) characteristics of decentralized global organizations that enable this link.

Enabling Information Exchange and Educational Programmes

Globalization is one such concept that enables the development of learning mediums that drive decentralized initiatives and agendas across scales. This connectivity model, enhanced by increasingly accessible technologies, provides opportunities for global networks to connect with the systems and processes required to enable EfS to be effectively facilitated at local, regional, national and international scales. Gibson (2006: 19) considers that technology will drive the development of an increasingly systemic public commons.

Technology is seen by many as one of the most promising venues for encouraging, facilitating, and increasing citizen-centered dialogue, deliberation, organising, and action around a wide variety of issues, but it has been relegated to the side-lines in many of the public discussions about service and civic engagement.

Parrish (2007) contends that there is a growing appreciation that it is not human technology so much as patterns of human activity that is challenging the sustainability of human development. Demonstrating the contradictory nature of globalization, the sustainability movement itself has grown into a key instrument within the globalization process, with activists using global networks, such as internet-based social media, to organize international demonstrations against global processes that include, for example, the practices of transnational corporations and international free trade regulations (Krishna, 2008; McGrew, 2008; Meyer, 2007; Sachs, 2000). The emerging Global Information Society and information economy, and the resultant development of novel patterns of human activity evolving from these developments, hold implications for EfS throughout the sustainability learning process providing justification for further research into the impact that globalization and decentralized networks have upon the scalability of organizations and projects. The Internet is a significant enabler of scale and may actually be the most powerful tool to hit humanity since the advent of agricultural communities. The explosive growth of global virtual communities of people united across borders, race, sex, religion, etc. by interests and beliefs and the nearly instantaneous ability to share ideas—both revolutionarily wonderful and awkwardly unremarkable—is clearly the kind of transformative tool that would legitimately be considered a leverage point (Van Peborgh 2008). As indicated by Cogburn (1998: 1):

At a more conjunctural and secondary level, globalization is affecting all of the social, political and economic structures and processes that emerge from this global restructuring. One critical issue that emerges from all of these restructuring processes is the central role of knowledge, education and learning for the success of the Global Information Society (GIS) and global information economy. Knowledge is becoming an increasingly important factor of production. More important, some analysts would argue, than land, labour and capital.

In the context of sustainability learning, this restructuring of processes is closely aligned to what Tàbara and Pahl-Wostl (2007) identified as the requirements for the effective flow of information and knowledge. It is also aligned to what Bouwen and Taillieu (2004) identified as a condition for the development of communities of practice. Both concepts remain integral to the systemic and scalable development of global networks, as they provide a framework for communication and connection identified by the authors as integral to sustainability learning.

A whole-minded aptitude is fundamental to the practice of developing communities of practice that integrate design, development and facilitation of ideas and knowledge. Pink (2006), building on Heskett’s (2002) terms, identified the requirement for utility and significance in the general design of systems. A focus upon these two integral elements of design can simplify an otherwise intricate system which may otherwise be fraught with complexity. Utility satisfies a systems requirement for a product or service to perform the specific function for which it is intended. Whilst, significance requires the product of the system to provide an aesthetic appeal that transcends its functionality (Pink 2006). For example, a ship builder must construct a boat that will float and remain watertight (utility). However, the boat is a symbol of freedom and enjoyment for the owner and conveys this emotion to its passengers (significance). Establishing a link between utility and significance provides a strong platform from which to design, develop and facilitate global, decentralized networks. As a result of the aforementioned rise in communications technology and global network development, design of cross-border projects has become an increasingly collaborative process requiring an emotional connection to be fostered and up-scaled through the implementation of structured programmes. Consequently, the use of technology in, for example, multi-disciplinary network development, is a human-created means of ordering physical elements to perform a specified function (Parrish 2007) using technology as a tool to enhance the performance of the said function. It is argued that globalization and the delivery of EfS at various scales afford the opportunity to augment the link between utility and significance in network development through a heightened awareness of the requirement for systems thinking as an integral part of the development of global networks and delivery of EfS.

A Broader Scope for Educational Investment

Research into scale has been tenuous as a result of scaling up efforts, in the first place, generally initiated with development goals, rather than with research goals. Indeed, Catacutan (2005) asserts that the knowledge base generated from research into scale and its impact upon organizations and the programmes they deliver could actually make a significant contribution to the further scaling up of appropriate technologies, programmes or strategies. However, there remains a limited amount of literature investigating the scalability of EfS programmes and the organizations that deliver them demonstrating the often detached worlds of research and development.

The concept of scale, as it relates to EfS, is grounded in current and emerging national and international sustainability drivers. From an international perspective, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) identified promoting education and environmental sustainability as integral to achieving the MDG plan and realizing the quantitative targets set for the year 2015 (Sachs and McArthur, 2005). In Australia, providing effective EfS, is endorsed as an imperative in all states and territories and is guided by the ‘National Action Plan’ documents ‘Educating for a Sustainable Future’ (DEH, 2005), and now superseded by ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ (DEWHA, 2009). However, as Sachs and McArthur (2005: 350) note, ‘scale-up of interventions and policies required to meet the MDGs will demand long-term investments in management systems, training and retention of human resources, and infrastructure’. This is a result of the increasing pressures to account for resources and to demonstrate that they are important investments of public assets. A combination of economic and developmental motives makes a good justification for scaling projects.

In order to understand the impact of scale upon educational delivery, there is a requirement to monitor its application. Monitoring and evaluation systems are one such means for identifying the scalability of projects. There is a growing body of literature (e.g., Bellamy et al., 2004; Klauer et al., 2006; Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998; Stem et al., 2005; Tilbury, 2007, 2009; Tilbury and Janousek, 2006) investigating EfS indicators, monitoring and evaluation. Embedded in the global context is the requirement for congruence amongst organizational objectives, strategic objectives and programme outputs of which monitoring and evaluation programmes provide structure. The Global Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (GMEF) has been developed as a rigorous framework to achieve congruence (Tilbury, 2009). However, although the monitoring and evaluation frameworks (MEFs) potential for programme congruence and systems evaluation is identified as far reaching (Tilbury, 2010) and a core purpose identified for the UN-DESD (UNESCO 2007), in reality, financial backing for the UN-DESD GMEF was ‘limited’ (Tilbury, 2009: 192) and, therefore, the operationalization of the GMEF was stalled. Drawing on the UN-DESD experience, Tilbury (2009, 2010) and Mula and Tilbury (2009) have highlighted several potential barriers to the effective monitoring and evaluation of a global-scale programme including: lack of explicit intentions and goals; limited funding allocated to monitoring and evaluation; and lack of formal data collection systems. Lessons from the related natural resource management (NRM) context indicate the utility of a systems approach for developing a MEF. In particular, Bellamy et al. (2004: 27) identify a systems approach to unlock the potential of evaluation to ‘identify a wider variety of outcomes (e.g., social, political, economic, environmental and institutional)’. The systems approach to the UN-DESD appears to be established under the guise of the GMEF; however, it is currently lacking at a global, and in many cases regional and local, level the impetus to ensure that the GMEF is funded, delivered and adequately monitored and evaluated. As noted by Mula and Tilbury (2009), ‘despite these challenges, the DESD has raised expectations amongst EfS stakeholders, who see this platform as a good opportunity not only to embed EfS at all education levels but also to inﬂuence government decisions and to move towards social and economic systemic change’.

Barriers to monitoring and evaluation must be addressed prior to the commissioning of EfS projects, if scale is to be engineered into organizational development and programme delivery. Well-designed approaches to scaling EfS could have wide-ranging impacts upon the implementation of MEFs. Scale involves adapting an innovation successful in some local setting to effective usage in a wide range of contexts. In contrast to experiences in other sectors of society, scaling up successful programmes has proved very difficult in education (Dede et al., 2005). Scalability in the context of EfS is the property of reducing or increasing the scope of education and learning methods, processes and management according to the project size and reach. One way of assessing scalability is with the notion of scalable adequacy—the effectiveness of an EfS framework or process when used on differently sized problems. Certainly, each setting contains road maps of how innovations have successfully scaled up, or failed to do so. The quality of implementation needs to be monitored and described, including the planned and actual intervention and the planned and actual implementation support systems (Greenberg et al., 2002). Inherent in this idea is the capability to scale the process to particular project needs, contractual requirements or even to budgetary and organizational goals and objectives.

Approaches that Effectively Link Local and Global Scales

Scalability, as an organizational concept, realizes an enhanced impact if it can serve as an example for other projects, organizations and communities across the globe to emulate. Scalability in and of itself can be evidence that an idea is sustainable, at least in the more traditional sense of the word (Catacutan, 2005) as a sustainable idea should be able to be replicated and repeated with continuing success and in perpetuity. In business, the most promising commercial endeavours are the ones that exist independently of any single person’s unique expertise. If a company has to rely on the creativity or management expertise of a single person, the continuation of that company’s operations is at great risk. Perhaps, more importantly, the growth and profitability of a business may be stifled by the inability of its model to scale to other regions when it is managed by different people in different cultural contexts. EfS projects are not dissimilar to those found in other businesses. EfS projects that involve local people with unique talents may be quite advantageous in the short term; however, when the leaders move away, move on to something different or retire altogether, the project is put at risk of declining continuity and stagnation. One way to assess these risks is to hypothesize if a project could be scaled up to include the neighbouring community, the rest of the country or the rest of the world. If this is the case, then the project probably has good prospects for operational sustainability. However, if the project does not pass this test, it probably will not be sustainable in the long term or even in the short term in a disparate group of places. It would be quite wasteful for organizations to ignore the impact created by scalable ideas and models that can be adapted to a greater number of communities.

The lack of research into scalability, as previously indicated by Catacutan (2005), is considered problematic and is primarily due to the traditional view that:

dissemination and scaling up is devoid of research; and

it is free from the responsibility of pure development and extension agencies.

This reflected the long-held gap between research and development into scalability. However, if research and development institutions are to close this gap, scalability research should be high on their agenda (Catacutan, 2005).

The concept of scalability could be validated and benefit from an evaluation of programme effectiveness. Catacutan’s (2005) early research in characteristics and conditions lends to scalability research by looking at the advances made towards meeting a programme’s objectives, as well as an analysis of conditions predisposed to successful implementation. An adaptation of the programmes context and pre-conditions matrix (refer to Table 1) may well assist the early identification of a project’s predisposition to scale, making it easier to identify and select programmes that can be effectively delivered at scale.

Table 1

Programme context and pre-conditions matrix

Key Characteristics of the Programme (Programme Context)	Fundamental Conditions	Necessary Conditions	Negotiable Conditions	Non-negotiable Conditions
Participatory	High relevance to potential users	Sense of volunteerism and participation values	Participatory approaches, pre-existing human or social capital	Facilitation skills, capability building activities
Information oriented	Availability of information-equipped institutions	Participatory generation of appropriate technologies	Dissemination approaches (e.g., stakeholder-to-stakeholder)	Continuous flow and sharing of information
Key stakeholder-focused	High programme relevance to key stakeholders	Participation, unity and cooperation, sense of solidarity	Pre-existing human and social capital	Training, capability building and facilitation
Based on partnerships	Government support	Other institutional support	Pre-existing partnership schemes	Convergence of common interests and goals

Source: Adapted from Catacutan (2005).

The authors argue that all programme characteristics and corresponding conditions indicated in Table 1 are required for EfS programmes to be successfully scaled up, out and in. The key research objective is to recognize how the identification of these characteristics and conditions lend themselves to successfully developing projects with in-built capacity for scale.

Table 2

Four types of scaling up

Type	Description
Quantitative	A programme or an organization expands its size by increasing its projects or constituency through an increase in geographic area or budgets.
Functional	An organization expands the number and the type of its projects, e.g., from EfS to sustainable development consulting.
Political	The organization moves beyond service delivery towards empowerment and change in structural causes of underdevelopment. This usually involves active political involvement and the development of relations with the state.
Organizational	Organizations increase their organizational strength to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of their activeness. This is through diversifying funding sources, increasing level of self-financing/ income generation, assuring the enactment of public legislation earmarking entitlements within the annual budgets for the programme, creating external links with other organizations or improving internal management capacity of staff.

Source: Uvin (1995).

Scaling projects and the organizations that deliver them is a multi-tiered process and requires congruence between programme characteristics and a commitment to a participatory approach. Uvin (1995) suggested that scaling up is about expanding impact and not just becoming larger. Uvin (1995) identified four types of scaling up (refer to Table 2).

A combination of the four types of scaling up is often required to provide an overall net gain in scalability and programme development, meet project characteristics and conditions and increase the impact of the organization and its projects. These net gains can be accomplished through: expanding the coverage and size of the organization; increasing activities and projects; broadening indirect (i.e., other stakeholders) impacts; and enhancing and ensuring organizational sustainability (Uvin et al., 2000).

There is a requirement for scalability to be implemented via a multidimensional approach inclusive of vertical and horizontal scales. Methods for scaling EfS ought to be thought of as non-linear. For example, as an organization advances higher up the institutional levels (vertical scaling up), the greater the chances for horizontal spread; likewise, as one spreads farther geographically (horizontal scaling up), the greater the chances of influencing those at the higher levels. Two significant dimensions of scale are defined as:

Vertical scaling, sometimes referred to as scaling up, is higher up the ladder. It is institutional in nature that involves other sectors/stakeholder groups in the process of expansion—from the level of grassroots organizations to policymakers, donors, development institutions and investors at international levels.

Horizontal scaling, sometimes referred to as scaling out, is the geographical spread to cover more people and communities and involves expansion within the same sector or stakeholder group. Others refer to it as a scaling out process across geographical boundaries. Achieving geographical spread is also realized through scaling down—increasing participation by decentralization of accountabilities and responsibilities particularly in breaking down big programmes into smaller programmes/projects (Committee Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 1999).

The authors argue that there exists a third layer of scale termed ‘scaling-in’ which is values and culture based and not often identified, nor defined, in scalability research. Scaling-in provides depth to the framework and, when layered with vertical and horizontal scales, offers a three dimensional structure for scalability. Figure 1 illustrates this multi-scale, nested framework composed of the three above-mentioned layers of scale.

Figure 1

Multi-scale framework

The framework illustrated in Figure 1 becomes the lens through which the organizational (micro), geographical (macro) and values-based pre-conditions required to scale EfS projects are examined. Decentralized, global networks are well placed to deliver EfS at scale due to their focus upon organizational and programme development across multiple scales. Decentralized networks are presented with a number of benefits of incorporating scale into their organizational and project-specific development and delivery. Subsequent monitoring and evaluation of their projects across the three previously mentioned scales may yield a more concise snapshot of programme effectiveness. Benefits of scale include the following five themes:

Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of projects;

Providing feedback to key stakeholders (e.g., project participants, funders and academic community);

Identifying the need for future projects and project areas;

Providing for further development of the EfS body of knowledge in general; and

Enabling ongoing learning and improvement in the practice of EfS.

Benefits, challenges, barriers and opportunities to facilitating EfS are interwoven into many contrasting approaches to scalability and EfS delivery. The challenge for decentralized networks is in identifying these barriers and opportunities early on in the process or as they materialize. This early identification will assist in ensuring that a strategy is in place to mitigate and/or adapt to challenges. An approach that takes into account the multi-scale, nested framework illustrated above could assist in systemizing decentralized, global networks approach to programme design and organizational development as it relates to the delivery of EfS.

Decentralized Global EfS Organizations

As indicated in previous sections, decentralized global networks are an emerging mechanism for addressing systemic problems that have so far eluded smaller-scale approaches to sustainability learning. Due to their architecture, they are well placed to link local and global scales through the application of enabling technologies, systems and broader approaches to programme and organizational scope. However, there currently remains limited literature examining how decentralized networks operate as global organizations and how they facilitate EfS across scales—scaling up, out and in from local to international projects. Current research has focused on notions of ‘scaling up’ and suggests that educational programmes using this approach are often negatively associated ideas relating to mass production and marketing of particular products (Elias et al., 2003). By way of contrast, Elias et al. (2003) caution that the widespread implementation of effective EfS programmes require ‘thoughtful realism’ about how scaling programmes up, out and/or in can be ‘important, difficult and possible’. Indeed, the up-scaling and mainstreaming of sustainability is a significant contemporary challenge and important questions about the myriad of issues associated with scaling EfS programmes have not been adequately addressed (IUCN, 2008).

International non-profit associations (INPAs) are representative of decentralized, global networks. Non-profit associations are, by their nature, diverse in market, offering, composition, financial throughout and frequently, governance. Boris and Steuerle, as appearing in Powell and Steinberg’s (2006: 3) compilation of works, indicate that non-profits play a varying degree of roles in society, including drivers of social, economic and political change.

They provide services as well as educate, advocate, and engage people in civic and social life. Given this diversity, conclusions about one type of non-profit organisation do not translate easily to other types.

The diversity of non-profit associations presents an inherent challenge in defining the sector, as there is often, not unlike the concept of sustainability, a profusion of terms used to characterize the range of institutions. These terms include ‘charitable organization’, ‘independent sector’, ‘voluntary sector’, ‘associational sector’ and ‘tax-exempt sector’ (Salmon and Anheier, 1997). Any specific connection with the above-mentioned definitional terms can lead to both a sense of ambiguity associated with the sector and confusion as to the objectives of the actors within the sector. Although there is not the reach in this research to debate the scope, unit of analysis or legality that comprises the non-profit sector, it should be noted that the definition of a not-profit is often regionally and/or internationally specific, presenting a set of challenges unique to global, decentralized non-profits. Specifically, the challenges associated with creating a consistent, organizational message both within the organization and across regional/national boundaries. An example is highlighted by the aims of the Environment and Schools Initiative (ENSI), a globally recognized INPA. ENSI was established under the auspices of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a network aligned with government levels. ENSI is focused upon the development, research and dispersion of EfS and has traditionally used the term Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD) to identify the link between sustainability learning and the progress of social, environmental and economic development. ENSI provides an organizational approach, structure and numerous project-based case studies investigated throughout this research and will be the lens through which INPAs are examined. One means for isolating the scope of an INPA is to identify its operational aims and objectives. ENSI’s operational aims include (Smith, 2004):

To create stable learning networks, which link schools, families, community and workplaces;

To generate local knowledge and meaningful discourses concerning sustainable development to meet personal, social and economic needs within communities; and

To foster the democratic participation of students as active citizens in shaping the environmental conditions of their life and work.

Operational objectives include:

Starting up, coordinating and supporting research and school development initiatives;

Preparing publications with a view to inform the public about and propagate the aforementioned themes and activities;

Promoting international exchanges and acquiring insights and knowledge, setting up forms of cooperation, including with other international organizations and programmes; and

Preparing and providing policy recommendations and other advice, either or not solicited.

To provide further context, in 2001 ENSI became a decentralized international network, no longer linked to the OECD. This represented an opportunity for ENSI to establish itself as a strictly independent organization. As a consequence of the move to become an independent INPA, ENSI became less legitimized from the point of view of some governments. Meanwhile the European Union’s (EU) regulations changed and only INPA’s institutions in the frame of, for example, the school systems, universities and research bodies were eligible for EU grants. Given these restraints, ENSI had to become an INPA to maintain consistent levels of funding under ENSI’s current funding model. As a consequence, ENSI has ultimately ended up with two bodies: ENSI INPA and ENSI decentralized network. ENSI is a worthy example of the complexity often at play in decentralized global networks.

In some measure, there is agreement that, at least in essence, not-profit associations can be defined as those that are organized for public purposes, are self-governing, and do not distribute surplus revenues as profits (Powell and Steinberg, 2006; Salmon and Anheier, 1997). However, there still remains a degree of vagueness surrounding the sector, and the tremendous variations that subsist in the kinds of institutions that exist on a global scale.

Conclusion

In 2009, as the UN-DESD progressed through its midterm, stakeholders were asking the following key questions relating to the impact of the UN-DESD: What will change as a result of the UN-DESD? What will be its legacy? (Mula and Tilbury, 2009). As the end of the UN-DESD approaches the question remains: how are current programmes measuring up? which begs us to ask: are current programmes accomplishing enough to solve sustainability challenges? An ever-growing number of organizations have joined the debate and have begun to rethink the place that their organization is occupying and the role that they play in society. In this way, the concept of what constitutes a sustainable organization continues to develop and be enriched, particularly in ethical and social terms. Internally, a new organizational culture has emerged. A culture that recognizes that the people that the organization is composed of and the know-how that they generate are its main assets, since the competitiveness of the organization depends on their capacity for action and innovation. Externally, organizations have begun to recognize themselves as integral parts of the communities where they operate and, as such, jointly responsible for both the welfare and the problems of these societies, as well as being participants in the definition of their values. Emerging from this concept is the incorporation of the environmental variable into organizational strategy, along with the creation of economic and social value and with it a perceived requirement for the measurement of value created by this new found focus upon sustainability (Fricker,1998).

The emerging theoretical framework is based on a review of existing literature and best practice examples of MEF in Australia and worldwide, including, more centrally, how scalability is approached in programme delivery and organizational development. This framework is consistent with the objectives identified in the GMEF Operational Plan (UNESCO 2007) and builds upon the work undertaken by the Monitoring and Evaluation Expert Group (Tilbury, 2009). As indicated by Fricker (1998), it may be more appropriate now to ask how we measure up to sustainability as opposed to how we measure sustainability. In conclusion, scalability offers numerous benefits for ongoing learning to enhance EfS objectives and decentralized global networks provide a mechanism to enacting effective EfS across scales.

References

AtKisson

(1999). Believing Cassandra: An optimist looks at a pessimist’s world. Victoria, Australia: Scribe Publications.

Bellamy

Smith

Taylor

Walker

(2004). Regional natural resource management planning arrangements: Evaluating through the regional lens. In Bellamy

(Ed.), Regional natural resource management planning: The challenges of evaluation as seen through different lenses (pp. 27–34). QLD: Science Communications Unit, Natural Resource Sciences, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Bouwen

Taillieu

(2004). Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: Developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 137–153.

Catacutan

(2005). Research on scaling up. In Gonsalves

, . (Eds). Participatory research and development for sustainable agricultural and natural resource management - a source book, Vol. 2: Enabling Partcipatory Research and Development (pp. 1–8).

Cogburn

D. L.

(1998). Globalization, knowledge, education and training in the information age. South Africa: Centre for Information Society Development in Africa and Global Information Infrastructure Commission.

Committee Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. (1999). Scaling up sustainable agriculture initiatives: Highlights and synthesis of proceedings of the CGIAR NGO Committee Workshop. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.

Dede

Honan

Peters

, (Eds). (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH). (2005). Educating for a sustainable future: A national environmental education statement for Australian schools. Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA). (2009). Living sustainably: The Australian government’s National Action Plan for Education for Sustainability. DEWHA, Environment Standards Branch, Canberra, ACT.

10.

Elias

M.J

Zins

J. E.

Graczyk

P. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

(2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 303–319.

11.

Fricker

(1998). Measuring up to sustainability. Futures, 30(4), 367–375.

12.

Gibson

C. M.

(2006). Citizens at the centre: A new approach to civic engagement. The Case Foundation. Retrieved from http://casefoundation.org/sites/default/files/citizens-at-the-center.pdf

13.

Greenberg

M. T.

Domitrovich

Graczyk

P. A.

Zins

J. E.

(2002). The study of implementation in school-based prevention research: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Report submitted to The Center for Mental Health Services. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

14.

Heskett

(2002). Toothpicks and logos: Design in everyday life. USA: Oxford University Press.

15.

IUCN. (2008). IUCN World Conservation Congress 2008. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2(2), 97–98.

16.

Klauer

Drechsler

Messner

(2006). Multicriteria analysis under uncertainty with IANUS-method and empirical results. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 235–256.

17.

Krishna

(2008). Globalization and postcolonialism: Hegemony and resistance in the twenty-first century. Lanham: Rowman Littlefield Publishers.

18.

McGrew

(2008). Globalization in hard times: Contention in the academy and beyond. In Ritzer

(Ed.), The Blackwell companion to globalization (pp. 29–53). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

19.

Margoluis

Salafsky

. (1998). Measures of success: Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects. Washington, DC: Island Press.

20.

Meyer

J. W.

(2007). Globalization: Theory and trends. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 48(4), 261–273.

21.

Mula

Tilbury

(2009). A United Nations Decade for Sustainable Development (2005–14): What difference will it make? Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(1), 87–97.

22.

Parrish

B. D.

(2007). Designing the sustainable enterprise. Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds.

23.

Pink

D. H.

(2006). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. USA: Penguin Group.

24.

Powell

W. W.

Steinberg

(Ed.). (2006). The non-profit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.

25.

Sachs

J. D.

McArthur

J. W.

(2005). The millennium project: A plan for meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The UN Millennium Project, New York.

26.

Sachs

(2000). Globalization and sustainability. Unpublished manuscript, Berlin, Germany.

27.

Salmon

L. M.

Anheier

H. K.

(1997). Defining the non-profit sector: A cross national analysis. In John Hopkins comparative non-profit sector project (pp. 1–9). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

28.

Smith

(2004). The role of environment and school initiatives (ENSI) in a global environment: A summary of its operations, effectiveness, relevance and performance since its inception in 1986. Environment and Schools Initiative, Germany.

29.

Stem

Margoluis

Salafsky

Brown

(2005). Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: A review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology, 19(2).

30.

Suter

(2003). Global order and global disorder: Globalization and the nation-state. London: Praeger.

31.

Tàbara

J. D.

Pahl-Wostl

(2007). Sustainability learning in natural resource use and management. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 3.

32.

Tilbury

(2007). Monitoring and evaluation during the UN decade of education for sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 239–254.

33.

Tilbury

(2009). Tracking our progress: A global monitoring and evaluation framework for the UN UN-DESD. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3, 189.

34.

Tilbury

(2010). Assessing ESD experiences during the UN-DESD: An expert review on processes of learning for ESD. Paris: UNESCO.

35.

Tilbury

Janousek

(2006). Development of a national approach to monitoring, assessment and reporting on the decade of education for sustainable development: Summarising documented experiences on the development of ESD indicators and networking with expert groups on ESD indicators. Sydney: Australian Research Institute of Education for Sustainability and Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources.

36.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2003). Citizens, businesses and governments: Dialogue and partnerships for development and democracy. Fourth Global Forum on Reinventing Government, Capacity Development Workshops, Morocco.

37.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2007). UN UN-DESD global monitoring and evaluation framework—Operational plan. Paris: UNESCO.

38.

UNESCO, Institute for Statistics. (2002). Financing education: Investments and returns—Analysis of the World Education Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Education Indicators Programme.

39.

Uvin

(1995). Fighting hunger at the grassroots: Paths to scaling up. World Development. 23(6), 927–939.

40.

Uvin

Jain

P. S.

Brown

L. D.

(2000). Think large and act small: Toward a new paradigm for NGO scaling up. World Development, 28(8), 1409–1419.

41.

Van Peborgh

(2008). Sustainability 2.0 networking enterprises and citizens to face world challenges. Odiseo, Buenos Aries, Argentina.

42.

Weyler

(2004). Greenpeace: An insiders account. London: Rodale International.