Critical evaluation of definition(s) of sustainability at a Dutch university

The term sustainability is increasingly used in many aspects of our daily lives, including in higher education. Definitions often equate sustainability with sustainable development or follow the ‘three pillars’ of economy, environment, and society. These definitions serve to exclude non-human animals, and in doing so perpetuate an anthropocentric worldview which acts as a barrier to true transformation. Universities are centres of knowledge creation and dissemination, and the language they use to communicate about sustainability is important. This research takes a critical ecolinguistic approach to explore how sustainability is defined and operationalised by a Dutch university. The university definition of sustainability was evaluated through examination of the ‘strategic plan’ and ‘the sustainability roadmap’ of the university. We evaluate these definitions against the ecological philosophy of this research which embeds non-human animals in its definition. We find that the university tends to view sustainability as a broad version of the anthropocentric term sustainable development. The university’s message on sustainability is not overly coherent and the texts split their focus between the planetary aspects and the social impact of sustainability decisions. Animals are almost never mentioned in the definition, and are operationalised only in terms of what they can provide humans.