Spiritual Intelligence and Sustainable Living: Exploring the Moderation Impact of Academic Stream in Higher Education Institutions of West Bengal,India

Introduction

The contemporary world faces an unprecedented convergence of crises—environmental degradation, climate change, growing social inequality, and the erosion of ethical values (Vijaya, 2024)—all of which pose profound challenges to human survival and collective well-being (Dierksmeier and Hoegl, 2014). In this context, the idea of sustainable living has evolved from a theoretical ideal to an urgent necessity. Sustainable living refers to conscious lifestyle choices and behaviors that minimize ecological footprints, promote social equity, and ensure economic responsibility, thus aligning personal life with global sustainability goals (Schreurs et al., 2013; Salonen et al., 2018). It finds expression in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4.7, which emphasizes the need for education that promotes sustainable development, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity (United Nations, 2015).

Education for Sustainable Development is no longer an ancillary concern but a central pillar of global education policy. India’s National Education Policy echoes this vision by calling for the integration of ethical reasoning, environmental awareness, and holistic development in curricula (National Education Policy, 2020). However, while policy frameworks offer a broad vision, the actualization of sustainable development at the individual level depends on internal capacities—the psychological, spiritual, and moral attributes that guide behavior (Schneider, 2024). This inner transformation is what the United Nations has recently referred to as the “inner dimension of sustainability,” a domain deeply interlinked with spiritual intelligence (SI) (Horlings, 2015; Grenni et al., 2020).

SI: The Inner Architecture of Sustainability

SI, a concept that transcends traditional intelligence paradigms, represents the ability to apply spiritual insights and values to everyday functioning (Amram, 2022; Pinto et al., 2024). First popularized by Zohar and Marshall, SI was defined as the intelligence with which we access our deepest meanings, values, and higher purposes (Zohar and Marshall, 2000). Building on this, Emmons proposed that SI involves the capacity for transcendence, heightened states of consciousness, and the ability to sanctify everyday experiences (Emmons, 2000; Dorobantu and Watts, 2023). King and DeCicco later operationalized the construct into four key components: Critical Existential Thinking, Personal Meaning Production, Transcendental Awareness, and Conscious State Expansion (King and DeCicco, 2009).

From a psychological standpoint, SI serves as a self-regulatory mechanism that influences how individuals make ethical choices, respond to adversity, and align their personal actions with universal values. It nurtures qualities such as empathy, mindfulness, compassion, and purposefulness—all of which are essential for sustainable behavior (Cicotto, 2025). Philosophers such as Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda emphasized the development of the “inner self” and the pursuit of higher consciousness as essential for the transformation of society. They argued that sustainability begins with self-realization, a principle echoed in global spiritual traditions, from Vedantic non-dualism to Buddhist mindfulness (Prasad, 2022; Barua, 2023).

Sustainability through a Sociological and Educational Lens

Sociologists such as Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck have argued that the risks of modernity—climate change, environmental collapse, and social alienation—cannot be solved through economic and technological solutions alone (Fiorenza, 2017). They require a transformation of consciousness and collective responsibility. In line with this, Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of habitus explains how socialization in educational institutions shapes enduring attitudes, including sustainable practices (Thapa, 2024; Lessa et al., 2018). Thus, the higher education system becomes not just a site of skill development but a crucible for cultivating sustainability-oriented worldviews.

The role of higher education in shaping sustainable lifestyles is particularly relevant in the Indian context, where the pluralistic academic landscape reflects diverse intellectual traditions. However, the extent to which students internalize sustainable values may differ based on their academic stream (Alsharif and Ofori-Darko, 2024). A science student may think in terms of ecosystems, climate data, and technological solutions. A social science student might focus on governance, inequality, and community resilience. Meanwhile, students in language and humanities disciplines may approach sustainability through ethics, cultural narratives, and questions about meaning and human responsibility. These differences invite an important reflection: does the way students are trained academically influence how deeply they connect sustainability to their inner values?

Contextualizing Sustainability in Indian Higher Education

West Bengal has long been known for its intellectual depth, spiritual traditions, and cultural richness. Its universities and colleges are not simply centers of academic instruction; they are spaces where ideas, values, and identities are shaped. In such a context, conversations about sustainability take on a deeper meaning. Sustainability is not only about environmental awareness or policy compliance, but it is also about how young people understand responsibility, purpose, and their relationship with the wider world.

India’s NEP 2020 speaks strongly about holistic education, character formation, and environmental consciousness. Yet policies alone cannot transform behavior. The real question lies beneath the surface: what inner capacities enable students to live sustainably, not just learn about sustainability? SI, as an internal orientation toward meaning, empathy, and higher values, may offer one important part of that answer.

This Perspective reflects on the connection between SI and sustainable living among postgraduate students in West Bengal. Drawing on evidence from a recent study conducted among postgraduate students (Appendix A1), it considers how inner development and academic formation together shape sustainable choices. By bringing psychological insight into conversation with educational policy and philosophical reflection, this discussion aims to contribute to a broader understanding of how sustainability must be cultivated not only through curriculum, but through consciousness.

From Awareness to Action: Empirical Reflections

Sustainability debates often assume that awareness naturally produces action. Yet decades of environmental research suggest that knowledge alone does not guarantee behavioral change (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Steg and Vlek, 2009). The persistent gap between environmental concern and actual sustainable behavior indicates that deeper psychological mechanisms may be at work. It is within this space that SI becomes particularly relevant.

Evidence drawn from a recent empirical study conducted among 420 postgraduate students in West Bengal (Appendix A1) offers meaningful support for this inner-dimension thesis. The findings revealed a moderately strong positive relationship between SI and sustainable living (r ≈ 0.54). In practical terms, students who demonstrated greater capacities for existential reflection, compassion, and meaning-making were more likely to engage in environmentally responsible and socially conscious practices. SI accounted for nearly 30 percent of the variance in sustainable habits (R² = 0.296), suggesting that inner orientation plays a substantial role in shaping everyday sustainability behaviors.

This pattern reinforces a growing body of scholarship emphasizing the moral and value-based foundations of sustainable action (Horlings, 2015; Grenni et al., 2020). While policy frameworks such as the United Nations SDGs highlight structural and institutional pathways toward sustainability (United Nations, 2015), behavioral transformation ultimately depends on internalized values. The present evidence suggests that SI may function as a psychological bridge between awareness and action, translating abstract sustainability principles into lived commitments.

Interestingly, the influence of SI appeared consistent across academic disciplines. Whether students were enrolled in Science, Social Science, or Language programs, the positive association between SI and sustainable living remained stable. This finding is conceptually significant. It indicates that sustainability-oriented behavior may not be primarily determined by disciplinary knowledge or technical training, but rather by deeper value structures. In other words, while academic streams shape how students intellectually interpret sustainability, inner capacities appear to shape how they embody it.

This observation challenges the assumption that sustainability education is primarily a matter of curricular content. If SI exerts a consistent influence across disciplinary boundaries, then sustainability cannot be cultivated solely through information delivery or technical competence. Instead, higher education must also engage the ethical and existential dimensions of learning. As scholars of transformative education have argued, sustainable development requires shifts in worldview, identity, and purpose—not merely skill acquisition (O’Grady, 2023; Wamsler et al., 2024).

Taken together, these findings support the broader claim that sustainability is as much an inner journey as it is an institutional agenda. Climate change, social inequality, and ecological degradation are not only technical problems; they are reflections of human values, priorities, and consciousness. Addressing them, therefore, requires attention to the cultivation of inner capacities that foster empathy, responsibility, and long-term orientation. SI, in this sense, represents not an alternative to sustainability education, but one of its foundational dimensions.

Synthesizing Sustainability through The Lens of SI

The empirical reflections presented earlier point toward a broader conceptual insight: SI appears to function as a foundational psychological resource for sustainable living. Students who demonstrate stronger capacities for reflection, ethical awareness, and meaning-making also exhibit deeper engagement with environmentally, economically and socially responsible practices. This suggests that sustainability is not sustained by information alone, but by values that are consciously internalized and enacted in everyday life. SI, in this sense, operates not merely as a personal development construct, but as an ethical orientation that extends toward ecological and social responsibility.

Importantly, the consistency of this pattern across academic disciplines invites deeper reflection. While disciplinary training may influence how students intellectually interpret sustainability—whether through ecological systems, social justice frameworks, or ethical inquiry—the influence of SI appears to transcend these boundaries. This reinforces arguments that sustainability requires cross-disciplinary integration grounded in shared moral commitments (Stead and Stead, 2014; Sharifnia et al., 2022; Ananthram and Chan, 2016; Huda, 2004). When sustainability is viewed through the lens of SI, it becomes less about disciplinary specialization and more about the cultivation of a common ethical foundation.

This interpretation aligns with a growing body of inquiry that positions SI as a driver of ethical and sustainable action. At the organizational level, SI has been associated with ethical decision-making and long-term sustainability orientation (Ananthram and Chan, 2016). Concepts such as Islamic spiritual capital similarly emphasize purity of intention and moral accountability as pathways toward sustainable outcomes (Huda, 2004; Grine et al., 2013). In leadership research, SI is linked to transformational leadership capacities that inspire collective commitment to global goals (Luetz and Nunn, 2023; Twigg and Parayitam, 2007), including the United Nations’ SDGs (Wamsler et al., 2024; Stead and Stead, 2014). The wholeness or SI model further underscores awareness, service, and interconnectedness as essential components of sustainable development (Luetz and Nunn, 2023).

At the individual level, SI nurtures empathy, compassion, and a sense of interconnectedness—qualities that counteract short-term self-interest and unsustainable consumption patterns (Arora and Reddy, 2024). Within higher education, it has been associated with heightened environmental responsibility and ecological awareness (Adnyana et al., 2023). Integrative educational models argue that embedding SI within curricula can cultivate future leaders and change agents who approach sustainability not only as a technical challenge, but as a moral responsibility (Cowan, 2005; Price et al., 2024; Gomes et al., 2025). Beyond academia, workplace research demonstrates that spiritually informed human resource practices can strengthen organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (Gomes et al., 2025), while hospitality sector studies link SI to empathy-driven sustainability commitments (Rezapouraghdam et al., 2019).

Consumer behavior research offers further support. Mindfulness-based interventions that enhance spiritual well-being have been shown to promote sustainable consumption patterns (Kaur and Luchs, 2022; Resnik, 2022; Saxena and Sharma, 2024). Integrating spirituality with cultural values also strengthens pro-sustainability intentions (Saxena and Sharma, 2024), while embedding spiritual capital into corporate communication strategies fosters consumer trust and environmentally responsible choices (Lee, 2024). Collectively, these findings suggest that SI influences sustainability across multiple domains—education, leadership, organizational practice, and consumption behavior, thereby reinforcing its integrative potential (Luetz and Nunn, 2023; Hunting and Conroy, 2018).

One particularly significant implication concerns the apparent stability of SI across disciplinary contexts. Although prior research has highlighted disciplinary differences in sustainability orientations (Schoolman et al., 2012; Saruchera, 2025; Stock and Burton, 2011), the present reflections suggest that SI may operate at a deeper level than disciplinary training alone. Sustainability, when grounded in SI, becomes a shared ethical orientation rather than a field-specific competence (Stock and Burton, 2011). It is possible that global normative frameworks, particularly the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda—have contributed to shaping common sustainability values across academic domains, thereby reinforcing the cross-disciplinary relevance of SI (United Nations, 2015).

These insights point toward a transformative possibility. If SI provides a stable ethical foundation for sustainable behavior, then cultivating it among young adults may represent one of the most promising pathways toward long-term ecological and social responsibility. Higher education institutions, therefore, must look beyond curriculum content and technical instruction. Integrating value-oriented pedagogies and SI-informed approaches into teaching and learning processes may be essential for advancing the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and nurturing globally responsible citizens (Rechberger, 2024). Sustainability, ultimately, may depend not only on structural reform but also on the cultivation of consciousness.

Conclusion

For decades, sustainability has been framed as a problem of systems-energy systems, economic systems, political systems. And yet, the persistence of environmental degradation suggests that the crisis is not only structural, but deeply human. We know more about climate change today than ever before. We have policies, targets, and global agendas. What remains uncertain is whether we are cultivating the kind of inner orientation that makes sustainable living a genuine commitment rather than a temporary compliance.

The reflections in this Perspective suggest that SI may be one of the overlooked foundations of sustainable behavior. When individuals develop the capacity for reflection, empathy, and a sense of interconnectedness, sustainability ceases to be an abstract concept. It becomes personal. It becomes ethical. It becomes difficult to ignore. In this sense, sustainable action may emerge not merely from awareness, but from alignment, alignment between knowledge and conscience.

Perhaps the more unsettling implication is this: if sustainability depends partly on inner development, then education cannot remain content-driven alone. Universities must ask whether they are only producing skilled graduates or really cultivating responsible human beings. Technical progress without ethical grounding can move us forward in capability, but not necessarily in responsibility. By contrast, nurturing SI may offer a pathway toward decisions grounded in long-term responsibility rather than short-term gain.

As global challenges intensify, the debate can no longer revolve solely around innovation, regulation, or economic incentives. It must also confront a deeper question: what kind of human beings are we becoming? Sustainability will not be secured by technology alone. It will endure only if it is anchored in values, consciousness, and a lived sense of shared destiny. In that sense, the future of sustainability may depend not only on what we build—but on who we choose to become.

Ethics Approval

The Departmental Research Committee of Aliah University reviewed and approved this survey-based research as part of the investigator’s doctoral program. Ethical approval was not required as the study involved the collection of anonymous and nonsensitive data from voluntary participants.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are confidential. As such, they are not publicly available. However, the data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors’ Contributions

B.R.: Conceptualized the study, collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the article. P.R.S.:Supervised the research design and contributed to article refinement. Both authors read and approved the final article.