Universities updated their sustainability theses – nature positivity emerges strongly alongside climate action

Universities in Finland have updated their shared theses on sustainable development and responsibility. Published originally in 2020, the theses underwent several minor changes on the basis of data gathered on their practical implementation.

Thesis number 7, which aimed at making universities carbon neutral by 2030, went through the biggest change. A simple reduction of carbon emissions provides much too narrow of an approach to global environmental issues. For this reason, the goal of nature positivity has been raised alongside climate action.

‘It makes sense to look at this issue from the broader perspective of nature positivity. This is how we ensure that climate action is not in conflict with stopping biodiversity loss. Naturally, aiming at carbon neutrality still continues to be a key goal,’ says Marja-Leena Laakso, Vice Rector and Chair of Unifi's Sustainability and Responsibility Working Group.

Carbon neutrality claims must be based on solid evidence

In the updated thesis, the carbon neutrality target is no longer tied to a specific time frame.  The decision also arises from a better understanding of the preconditions for carbon neutrality. Most emissions by universities are indirect, such as those caused by procurements. For total carbon neutrality, extensive offsetting of emissions would be required, which could be done by purchasing carbon credits.

‘At the moment, we consider it to be more effective to focus our efforts on promoting nature positivity more broadly in society through research and teaching – while also reducing harmful effects at the universities,’ Laakso says.

The policy has been approved by the university rectors and prepared by the responsibility experts of the Finn-ARMA network. It has also received comments from the Expert Panel for Sustainable Development, Nature Panel, and Finnish Climate Change Panel.

The updated thesis highlights carbon and nature impacts as important research topics. This contributes to the development of reliable compensation methods as well as tools for sustainability work in the wider society. The thesis also bans greenwashing: universities are not allowed to make misleading claims about carbon neutrality.

‘Although the joint deadline for universities to achieve carbon neutrality has been abandoned, each university sets clear targets for its climate and nature work and continues to reduce its emissions through primary actions, meaning avoiding and reducing emissions. For example, when it comes to travel, there is much we can do,’ says Laakso.

Good springboard for nature positivity

Janne Kotiaho, Professor of Ecology and the Chair of the Nature Panel, thinks that the update is taking a step in the right direction. It makes sense to examine climate emissions and biodiversity loss side by side, as they often come from the same sources; thus both can be effectively mitigated through the same actions.

‘Based on scientific evidence, it has long been clear that the focus of societal debate and action should be expanded to cover both phenomena. Succeeding in mitigating climate change and preventing biodiversity loss is key to the preservation of humanity,’ Kotiaho says.

According to him, Finnish universities have good preconditions for moving towards a nature positive society: several of them have already reduced their nature footprint, and they are collaborating in method development with actors such as Oxford University, which is one of the pioneers in the field.

‘You could say that Finnish universities are the most aware of this issue in the world.

Universities have a significant impact

What comes next, then? According to Kotiaho, it is important for universities to examine their impact on nature not only in Finland but also globally - and then change their attitudes, guidelines, and operating methods accordingly.

Actions that have the largest positive impact are the ideal starting point. In organisations, food and construction are typical sources of harmful effects on nature, but in universities, i.e. laboratory chemicals also contribute. Naturally, it is impossible to abandon them completely.

‘When you can’t avoid all harm, we have to think whether we should compensate for it. It is not possible to holistically improve nature without compensation,’ Kotiaho points out.

In his opinion, work for nature positive attitudes will radiate into the whole society. Universities can set an example, encourage their partners to reflect on their own nature footprint, and openly educate the public on the topic.

‘I think that the perspective shift that this is our responsibility comes out well in these theses,’ Kotiaho says.

High time for an interim review

Other updates have also been made to the theses from five years ago. The theses on funding and evaluations have been specified in a manner that lets universities take control of their achievement.

On the other hand, flexibility has been added: faculties can also carry out sustainability and responsibility teaching in ways other than on a separate course, and universities will set quantifiable sustainability objectives for investment activities in the future. The promotion of freedom of science was introduced as a new theme in the theses.

The changes were discussed at the UNIFI sustainability and responsibility seminar in November. The work will continue with outlining practical measures and reflecting on how the progress of the theses will be monitored from now on. Laakso thinks that it would also be appropriate to educate rectorates on the theme more deeply. The Unifi working group will continue to provide a forum for universities to spar each other.

‘Not everyone has to come up with solutions from scratch - we can learn from what has been done elsewhere.'

Fact: A look into the practical implementation of the theses so far

• According to a survey given to the universities in 2025, the most progress has been made on the thesis concerning interdisciplinary cooperation (3), education (4), and equality (8).
   
• The measures taken to implement the theses vary between universities; for example, resources have been allocated to multidisciplinary research, sustainability questions have been included in courses, and equality training has been offered to both new employees and directors.
   
• The theses related to the evaluation and funding of research projects (2), the strategy and resources of universities (11), and the funding model (12) proved to be the most difficult ones to implement. One reason is that they are not entirely in the hands of the universities.
   
• However, progress has been made in all theses. Measures that were brought up in the survey include drafting a roadmap for carbon neutrality, including the sustainability perspective in procurement guidelines, and emphasising sustainability when recruiting researchers. The persons in charge of investments and equality work at the universities have also joined forces to share practices.
   
• The seminar in November concluded that cooperation in the implementation of the theses will be particularly essential in four areas: research, education, nature positivity, and reporting. Expert groups have been assembled to plan and make progress in practical action in these areas.