Sources for this page; see the Bibliography:

Roorda (2010, 2015, 2016); Roorda & Rachelson (2018, 2019);

Roorda:  Fundamentals of Sustainable Development, 4^th Edition, 2025;  Basisboek Duurzame Ontwikkeling, 5^th edition, 2025; Grundlagen der nachhaltigen Entwicklung, 2^nd edition, 2025.

> On the next page, the complete set of competences is shown in English, German and Dutch.

> Download the RESFIA+D method as a set of spreadsheets in English, German or Dutch: see RESFIA+D:  The introduction.

RESFIA+D is based on a solid theoretical fundament, rooted in internationally recognized models for assessment and accreditation.

In several European countries, a strong impulse for the definition of generic graduate qualifications came from the Bologna Agreement of 1999. Around 2001, Flanders and the Netherlands were preparing their accreditation system of higher education.

As a consequence of the Bologna Agreement, they needed a clear distinction between the ‘first, second and third cycle’ of higher education (in many countries equal to the Bachelor, Master and Doctor level).

A ‘Joint Quality Initiative’ was set up, together with several other European countries.

During a meeting in 2004 in Dublin, the so-called ‘Dublin descriptors’ were agreed (also called the ‘Bologna Qualification Framework’). This set of qualifications defines the differences between the three cycles:

The Dublin descriptors were used by many universities and study programs as one of the starting points for the definition of professional competences of their graduates.

In the Netherlands, the national accreditation system of existing and new study programs in higher education was defined through an ‘Evaluation Framework’ (‘Toetsingskader’).

One of the demands in this framework deals with the end terms of the programs, which are explicitly based on the Dublin descriptors (NVAO, 2003). An example of such a set of end terms, formulated as general competences, is shown here:

Competences for sustainable development

In discussions with professors and lecturers in higher education, many times the same question has arisen: “Should ‘sustainability’ be added as an extra competence to our existing competence profile?”

This question raises the issue of the relation between competences and sustainable development, or more specifically: education for sustainable development (ESD).

The question shows that a lot of teachers find it hard to make a connection between ESD and competence-based education. If a ‘sustainability competence’ is formulated as ‘the ability to think and act in a sustainable way’ (as has been proposed by some), that does not really meet a desired characteristic of a competence profile, i.e. that the curriculum can be deduced from it. What exactly would ‘think and act in a sustainable way’ mean? In which critical professional situations is it expressed, in what roles and with which tools?

The ‘instrumentalist’ approach; Gestaltungskompetenze
Several approaches to ‘SD competences’ are possible, as De Kraker et al (2007, p. 105) describe. One is the ‘instrumentalist’ approach, offering lists of knowledge, skills and values. Opponents advocate an ‘emancipatory’ approach, putting an emphasis on raising a critical attitude of the students. A typical example is described by the so-called ‘Gestaltungskompetenzen’ (lit. ‘shaping competences’).

“Within the international discussion about ESD different sets of competencies as educational objectives of ESD exist but still a broad consensus can be found of the basic aspects that need to be involved. The German debate about ESD led to a definition of key competencies (“Gestaltungskompetenz”) to provide for an active, reflective and cooperative participation in the obligation to shape a sustainable development. This definition is based upon an understanding of education which is marked by the education-theoretical premises of openness, reflexivity and future viability:

• Openness, because the existing stock of knowledge has proved to be subjective and relative.
• Reflexivity, because subject and object underlie dynamic changes which may only be grasped by a higher-level reflexivity.
• Future viability, because in the increasing dynamic of global change, only he who has learned to responsibly cope with insecurities and risks will remain functionable.

The acquisition of Gestaltungskompetenz is seen as central educational objective of ESD. The term is used to describe the forward-looking ability, ‘to modify and to shape the futures of those societies we live in via active participation in terms of a sustainable development’.”
(Barth & Burandt, 2008, citing De Haan, 2002, and De Haan & Harenberg, 1999)

The emancipatory approach
According to De Kraker et al (2007), this concept of ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’ offers a combination of the instrumentalist and the emancipatory approach. The concept was detailed by De Haan (2006) as a set of key competences:

1. competence in foresighted thinking;
2. competence in interdisciplinary work;
3. competence in cosmopolitan perception, transcultural understanding and co-operation;
4. participatory skills;
5. competence in planning and implementation;
6. capacity for empathy, compassion and solidarity;
7. competence in self-motivation and in motivating others; and
8. competence in distanced reflection on individual and cultural models.

This list has its roots not in the process of educational developments but rather in the development of the science and philosophy of sustainable development. It is striking that the above list of SD competences shows a strong resemblance with the various sets of generic competences that were described in Tables 2 and 3. The two concurrent developments, within education and within sustainability science, have led to conclusions that are remarkably similar. This is illustrated by the fact that Barth et al (2007) applied De Haan’s model in order to specify the characteristics of ESD. It appears that SD competences are not far from general competences that one might expect from any graduate, whether sustainable development is in mind or not. In other words: actually, sustainable development is mainly a matter of common sense and sound professional behavior.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between the sets of generic competences, shown in Tables 2 and 3, and the above set by De Haan. Where most of De Haans competences are value-free, describing desired professional behavior in a ‘technical’ way, just as the generic competences of Tables 2 and 3, there is one competence which is normative and not value-free, and which refers to an attitude or to personal emotions rather than to behavior: #6, the capacity for empathy, compassion and solidarity.

Blending knowledge and skills
Not all ESD developers added such values to their sets of SD competences. One such set was published by the Commission on Education and Communication of the IUCN, which stated (Hopkins & McKeown, 2002):

“To be successful, ESD, like all good education, must blend knowledge and skills. ESD must provide practical skills that will enable people to continue learning after they leave school, secure sustainable livelihoods, and live sustainable lives. These skills will differ with community conditions. The following partial list of skills will help initiate discussions about the types of skills students will need as adults in those communities. Note that these skills, while totally consistent with good basic education, also fall into one or more of the three realms of sustainable development:

• the ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing;
• the ability to think about systems (both natural and social systems);
• the ability to think in time – to forecast, to think ahead, and to plan;
• the ability to think critically about value issues;
• the ability to comprehend quantity, quality, and value;
• the capacity to move from awareness to knowledge to action;
• the ability to work cooperatively with other people;
• the capacity to use various processes – knowing, inquiring, acting, judging, imagining, connecting, valuing, questioning and choosing; and
• the capacity to develop an aesthetic response to the environment.”

A set of professional roles
In this set, values are mentioned several times, but there is no clear indication that the authors wish that the professionals act based on a set of ethical or normative values, let alone compassion. This may be a consequence of the characteristics of professional profiles in general, which usually are formulated in terms of behavior rather than on attitudes or internal motivations or emotions. However, another author, Van der Woude (2008), expressly includes such elements. He describes SD competences as a set of professional roles:

• The global citizen / steward
• The professional
• The equilibrist
• The forward thinker
• The connector
• The steersman
• The function-oriented innovator
• The creatively involved

Van der Woude explains each of these eight roles. For example, the ‘global citizen / steward’ is described as follows:

“The global citizen / steward cares for himself, for others and for the physical reality. He is convinced that we should carefully deal with the finite stock of resources and that we should prevent environmental pollution and damage to nature in order to preserve our planet. He understands that this is only possible if we do not transfer our problems to others, don’t live at the cost of others, but share prosperity and well-being equally among the world population. North cannot over-consume at the cost of South. To reach a global balance, the global citizen / steward thinks we should be prepared to listen to each other, and that, instead of competition, we should seek cooperation and that we should work on a safe environment in which it is good to live and work.”

Such a description is clearly value-driven, and goes beyond the generic competences shown in Tables 2 and 3. Other proposed sets of SD competences seem to be somewhere in between, e.g. Heideveld (2003) and De Groene (2003, p. 26). The same is true for the ESD competences defined in the Barcelona Declaration of 2004 (see: Segalàs, 2009).

Competences for transition management

Other sets of SD competences come from a slightly different angle, that of transition management. Andringa & Weterings (2006, 2008) designed a competence profile for transition professionals. Jansen, Weaver & Van Dam-Mieras (2008) added more details, out of which the following table was formed.

Sets of competences like the above may offer some clarity to lecturers wanting to integrate sustainable development into competence-based education. Nevertheless, in the eyes of many university lecturers they were not sufficiently operational, as meetings and discussions in the years around and after 2005 made clear.

Besides, managers of companies indicated that such competence sets were too abstract to allow them to apply the sets in real life, e.g. as a tool for HRM.

Repeated requests were received by the author of the present chapter from business managers and university lecturers to create practical clarity concerning the relations between competences and sustainable development. Hence, a project was started with the aim to design a model for competences for sustainable development that could be applied in higher education, in companies and other organizations, and by individual professionals who want to plan the next steps in their careers. Based on the above-mentioned sets of competences, RESFIA+D was developed, validated and improved between 2006 and 2012. It has been applied since 2009.

Later developments
Several researchers have studied RESFIA+D, applied the model, and compared it with other competence models. Lambrechts et al (2013) compared RESFIA+D with De Haan (2006) and with Sleurs (ed.), 2008, and next applied RESFIA+D in order to analyze the education of two Belgian universities.

The need for new paradigms in order to design and realize ESD strategies was emphasized by Martens et al (2010), for which RESFIA+D was applied. The results were applied in Lambrechts et al (2019) as a coding tool to describe the roles of individual sustainability competences in eco-design building projects.

An overview of  recent models for ESD competences, including RESFIA+D, was offered in Lambrechts et al (2017).

The toolbox of the sustainable professional

On the previous page, competences were defined as follows:

        A competence is the ability to deliver, in a given context, in a certain role, solid achievements by making use of appropriate
        tools.

In many cases, the tools of professionals are tangible such as hammers, pipe wrenches, or computers. Other tools are in your head: for instance, people skills or architectural insight. There are four kinds of such “mental” tools. Together, they are referred to as “KISA,” an acronym that stands for these four words:

        Knowledge  = what you know

        Insight          = what you understand

        Skills             = what you are able to do

        Attitude       = who you are

Examples of those four kinds of mental tools are:

If you have all these tools in your repertoire, you possess a well-equipped toolbox to work sustainably. All of them are explained in more detail in the earlier mentioned books offering practical examples of the RESFIA+D competences.

> On the next page, the complete set of competences is shown.

References

Andringa, J., Weterings, R. (2006): Competenties van transitieprofessionals. Competentiecentrum Transities, Utrecht.

Andringa, J., Weterings, R. (2008): Competentieprofiel van transitieprofessionals. Competentiecentrum Transities, Utrecht.

Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckman, M., Stoltenberg, U. (2007): Developing key competences for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8, 416-430.

Competent HTNO (2000): Gids voor het beschrijven van de landelijke kwalificaties in het HTNO. HBO-raad: Competent HTNO, The Hague.

Covey, S.R. (1989): The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York.

Covey, S.R. (2004): The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York.

De Groene, A. (2003): Bewustwording en betrokkenheid. De rol van hoger onderwijs in transities naar een duurzame samenleving. Hogeschool Zeeland, Vlissingen.

De Haan, G. (2002): Die Kernthemen der Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. ZEP, 1, p. 13–20.

De Haan, G. (2006): The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, Vol. 1, pp. 19-32.

De Haan, G., D. Harenberg, (1999): Gutachten zum Programm Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Materialien zur Bil-dungsplanung und zur Forschungsförderung. Heft 72, Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung, Bonn.

De Kraker, J., A. Lansu, R. van Dam-Mieras (2007): Crossing boundaries. Innovative learning for sustainable development in higher education. Verlag für Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt am Main.

Deming, W.E. (1986): Out of the crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Dentoni, D., Blok, V., Lans, T., Wesselink, R. (2012): Developing human capital for agri-food firms’ multi-stakeholder interactions. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 15, 61-68.

Heideveld, A.J.P. (2003): Competenties voor de toekomst. In: Koperen oogst. 12 jaar rijksstimulering Natuur- en Milieu-Educatie en Leren voor Duurzaamheid. Programma Leren voor Duurzaamheid, NCDO, Amsterdam.

Hopkins, C., McKeown, R. (2002): Education for sustainable development: an international perspective. In D. Tilbury, R. Stevenson, J. Fien, D. Scheuder (eds.): Education and sustainability: responding to the global challenge. IUCN, Switzerland.

IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1980): World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources with UNEP and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.