New research reveals gap in delivery of equity-focused sustainability action in post-16 education

10th September 2025

New research carried out by EAUC in partnership with SOS-UK has revealed a significant gap in the integration of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) within sustainability teams in post-16 educational institutions across the UK and Ireland.

The study, which comprised a survey and interviews with sustainability professionals from 108 institutions [1], explored how EDI is understood and applied to both internal working practices and the delivery of sustainability work.

While 84% of respondents recognised the relevance of EDI to their sustainability goals, only 11% reported implementing an EDI plan aligned with their institutional strategy. Even fewer, just 2%, said they are delivering their sustainability work with an EDI-focus.

Charlotte Bonner, chief executive of EAUC commented:

“Sustainability is not solely about carbon targets and recycling rates; it is about creating systems that are fair, inclusive and healthy: capable of enabling everyone to thrive within planetary limits. However, the findings indicate that across post-16 education, EDI is still too often treated as an optional rather than essential component of sustainability work.

At a time of hate-fuelled unrest across many parts of the UK, it’s important that we take proactive steps to build safe and inclusive communities where everyone can learn, thrive and work towards a sustainable future.”

EDI areas of focus

As part of a deeper exploration beyond overall EDI integration, the survey asked respondents which areas, if any, of EDI had been a focus for their sustainability functions over the past five years.

Disability and gender emerged as the most common areas of focus - likely influenced by mandatory institutional reporting through HR initiatives such as Athena SWAN.

Meanwhile, socio-economic background was reported as being front of mind for the next five years.

However, factors that often cross traditional metrics, such as accent/language, neurodiversity and caregiving status, were cited as being far less commonly acknowledged or measured, reinforcing the broader findings of this research that EDI is not fully integrated or considered.

Inclusion, belonging and lived-experience reflections

While the primary aim of the research was to understand how EDI is practised and delivered in sustainability, rather than assess the diversity or demographic makeup of the sector, responses indicate a sector lagging behind on inclusion.   
For example, 43 % of respondents reported feeling excluded or under‑represented in their roles, most commonly due to gender, age and accent/language.

Meanwhile, interviews with those who have experienced exclusion or underrepresentation, which informed the focus of the research and its analysis, highlighted structural issues and tensions relating to the broader sustainability and education sectors.

For example, interviewees articulated the tension of being “asked to fit into a system that wasn’t built with us in mind” and emphasised the need for opportunities that enable to them to shape, and not just access, the sustainability sector.  

This was accompanied by calls to “decolonise mindsets”, urging the sector to examine why certain knowledge, language and behaviours have been valued to create “the sustainability profession.”

Barriers to progression

When asked to name the top barriers to embedding EDI in sustainability, respondents identified:

• time constraints and institutional resourcing cuts
• working in silos
• knowledge/confidence gaps

Additional comments suggested deeper cultural issues within institutions and a clear leadership vacuum. Respondents noted that sustainability continues to be narrowly defined in their institutions, often reduced to “buildings, energy and emissions”. Many said they considered responsibility for EDI to sit elsewhere in their institution, rather than integrated into the roles of those leading sustainability efforts. This is despite the root causes, and in many instances the solutions to, sustainability and EDI challenges being similar.

Strikingly, no respondents reported to having a sustainability lead with a formal remit for EDI, confirming anecdotal evidence that EDI efforts are currently driven by a handful of passionate individuals rather than being structurally embedded which leads to them being considered “nice to have” and therefore often in themselves unsustainable. Repeatedly, many of the barriers cited were linked to structural forces - time, budget constraints and siloed systems.  

Opportunities

When asked about the type of support needed, responded cited:

• Training
• Peer networks
• Space for reflection
• Leadership support
• Practical tools

EAUC also recognises opportunities to share effective learning from its members, particularly the Green Gown Awards which showcase practices already delivering strong EDI outcomes.

For instance, Cardiff University runs a free to‑access‑nature programme for disadvantaged pupils and De Montfort University’s Decolonising and Decarbonising initiative explores the intersection of environmental and racial justice. These are just a few examples of a growing and rich knowledge base within the EAUC community that could be leveraged by others, including in contexts where resources are limited.  

Next steps and recommendations

Advancing EDI efforts across EAUC’s work and membership is a strategic priority, with this research initiating a wider programme of work to ensure members are equipped to join the dots between EDI and sustainability in both theory and practice.    

In response to the request for peer networks, further support and learning that emerged in the research, EAUC has compiled an action pack with recommended steps that sustainability and EDI teams can take.   
 
Charlotte Bonner added:  

“We invite every institution, practitioner and partner to join us in moving from conviction to co-ordinated practice, thinking critically about how we embed EDI into sustainability and vice-versa. Together we can ensure that sustainability in post-16 education is inclusive, equitable and transformative – for people and planet, now and in the future.”

Acknowledgements​

We’d like to thank SOS-UK with their support in carrying out this research and analysis, the respondents of the survey and those who participated in the lived-experience consultations for sharing their views and experiences.

---

[1] The research was based on a survey with 138 respondents and 108 institutions represented. 18% of these were from FE, 76% from HE and 6% from other organisations. 82% of respondents were institutional sustainability leads or team members. The survey was complimented by interviews with sustainability professionals who identified as being part of excluded or marginalised groups.