WP 4 REPORT SDGs Laboratory Learning Journey - SDGs Labs
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SDGs-LABS.EU
WP 4 REPORT
SDGs Laboratory Learning
Journey
SDGs Labs
Making the SDGs our business
CONSORTIUM
UNIVERSIDADE
DE TRÁS-OS-MONTES
E ALTO DOURO
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARK
PARQUE DE CIÊNCIA E TECNOLOGIAWP 4 REPORT - SDGs Laboratory Learning Journey
PUBLISHED 30.06.2021
Main Authors
Larissa Jaeger, Martin Brunsmeier, Carla Maria Amaral, Marco Rieckmann, Edna Cabecinha,
Maria do Rosario Alves Ferreira Anjos, Sandra Mariza Veiga Monteiro, Artur Sá, Line Friis Lindner
Further Contributors
Johanna Bernhardt, Aurelia Brida, Foteini Chrysanthopoulou, Hannah Frost,
Rita Estácio, Marta Montenegro, Suhita Osório Peters, Lukas Scherak
The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an
endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission can-
not be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.CONTENTS 1. Introduction 7 1.1. The project SDGs Labs – Making the SDGs our business 7 1.2. Background to WP4 within the SDGs Labs project 8 1.3. Aim of the report 9 1.4. Structure of the report 10 2. PREPARATION OF SDGs laboratories 11 2.1. Core group 11 2.2. Concept of SDGs Innovation and Co-Learning Labs 11 2.2.1. SDGs Innovation Labs 11 2.2.2. SDGs Co-Learning Labs 12 2.3. Capacity building 12 2.4. Key insights for the implementation of labs 13 3. Approach to the evaluation of labs 14 4. Learning points from SDGs Innovation Labs 16 4.1. Participant motivation and knowledge prior to the labs 16 4.2. Implementation of SDGs Innovation Labs 17 4.3. Results of IL evaluation analysis 18 4.3.1. Analysis of IL participants’ evaluation 18 4.3.2. Analysis of IL facilitators’ evaluation 22 4.4. Interim Conclusions 25 5. Learning points from SDGs Co-Learning Labs 27 5.1. Participant’s motivation and knowledge prior to labs 27 5.2. Implementation of SDGs Co-Learning Labs in all project regions 28 4
5.3. Results of CLL evaluation analysis 29
5.3.1. Analysis of CLL participants’ evaluation 29
5.3.2. Analysis of SDGs Co-Learning Labs facilitator evaluation 32
5.4. Interim Conclusions 35
6. Conclusions 37
6.1. Implications for WP 5 ‘SDGs Academies’ 38
6.2. Learning points for different target groups 38
7. References 40
8. Annex 42
8.1. Company profiles SDGs Innovation Labs 42
8.2. Example of a workshop design of SDGs Innovation Labs 45
8.3. Overview of participants composition in Co-Learning Labs 49
8.4. Example of a workshop design Co-Learning Labs 49
5SUMMARY The SDGs Labs - Making the SDGs Our Busi- journeys and giving practical insights into the ma- ness project is run by eight European partners terial used and the organisation of both lab for- from four countries (Austria, Germany, Italy and mats, with different stakeholders from companies, Portugal), and involves Higher Education Institu- start-ups and other organisations from the agri- tions (HEIs), companies and other stakeholders. business and food production sector and HEIs. It aims to integrate the 17 Sustainable Develop- The evaluation of the labs has shown that the ment Goals (SDGs) into the business practices workshop series are useful in providing learn- of the agribusiness and food production sector. ing environments for companies, HEIs and other To achieve this, the SDGs Labs project seeks stakeholders. As all labs varied largely to account to translate the SDGs into day-to-day business for the regions’ different participant groups and practices, through the use of innovative co-learn- sustainability challenges in the sector, no single ing and co-creation environments. The agribusi- approach to the SDGs and SDGs laboratories can ness and food production sector faces increasing be suggested for similar future learning environ- sustainability challenges; meanwhile, it has high ments. Yet, it is one of the key insights of the pro- potential to contribute to the SDGs, and therefore ject that these specifics ought to be considered there is a need to highlight the potential of the well when designing labs. SDGs and how to implement them. The aim of the Depending on how the ILs were designed, they SDGs Labs is hence to provide business opportu- enabled participants to engage more intensively nities and support innovation in the sector. with the SDGs for the first time (e.g. awareness This report, SDGs Laboratory Learning Journey, raising, capacity building), or to take a fresh look describes the experience gained from designing, at already familiar corporate sustainability chal- planning, implementing and evaluating SDGs lab- lenges from the perspective of the SDGs. CLLs oratories, namely “SDGs Innovation Labs” (ILs) succeeded in bringing together stakeholders from and “SDGs Co-Learning Labs” (CLLs), in differ- different parts of the sector who would otherwise ent pilot regions between January 2020 and June not have met, creating an atmosphere of open 2021, covering the experience of lab participants, exchange and enabling changes of perspective. lab facilitators and lab organisers. The report While achieving the SDGs is urgent, by the time therefore has two aims: on the one hand, it de- of the evaluation, it is still too early to see long- scribes and assesses the experiences of facilita- term impacts of the labs. Yet, it is already appar- tors and participants, analysing what they have ent that at least some of the CLLs have sparked learned from the labs; and on the other, it aims new regional collaborations between actors in the to provide guidance, describing these learning sector. 6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. THE PROJECT SDGS LABS – nature, the implementation of the SDGs requires
far-reaching changes in all sectors of the econ-
MAKING THE SDGS OUR BUSINESS
omy. This project has been implemented against
The SDGs Labs – Making the SDGs Our Business the background of increasing sustainability chal-
project is an Erasmus+ Knowledge Alliance, link- lenges to the agribusiness and food production
ing eight partners from Higher Education Institu- sector and the high importance and potential of
tions (HEIs), companies and NGOs: this sector to contribute to the SDGs. The project
• Vienna University for Economics and Busi- also aims to contribute to the search for appro-
ness (project coordinator), Austria priate methods and tools for businesses to use
• University of Vechta, Germany to address the SDGs. Innovative educational for-
• Universidade de Trás-os-Montes de Alto mats (‘labs’ and ‘academy’) have also been devel-
Douro, Portugal oped to test promising methods and tools and to
• Terra Institute, Italy make further adjustments as necessary.
• ISEKI Food Association, Austria The agribusiness and food production sector
• Wiesenhof, Germany faces a multiplicity of sustainability challenges
• CEIFAcoop, Portugal that vary widely across different regions, prod-
• Regia – Douro Park, Portugal ucts, production systems and stages of the value
The project aims to integrate the Sustainable chain. In addition to the growing scarcity of basic
Development Goals (SDGs) into the business resources such as water, land, soil and the loss of
practices of the agribusiness and food production biodiversity “agriculture both contributes to cli-
sector. To achieve this, the project seeks to trans- mate change and is affected by climate change”
late the SDGs into day-to-day business practic- (Böll Foundation et al., 2019: 62). In relation to
es, ideally enabling the SDGs to provide business other sustainability issues, the challenges for the
opportunities while also supporting innovation in agribusiness and food production sector likewise
the sector. Linked to this, co-learning and co-cre- encompass both challenges to which the sector
ation play an important role, as the project aims contributes, and challenges that the sector fac-
to build a culture of collaboration and knowledge es. Overall, the European agribusiness and food
exchange between companies, HEIs, non-profit production sector is facing an uncertain future
organisations and other stakeholders. and multidimensional challenges (Ernst & Young
The United Nations adopted its Agenda 2030 for GmbH 2019: 12-13). Moreover, changed expecta-
Sustainable Development and the 17 associated tions of agriculture, increased criticism from soci-
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 ety (e.g. Thünen Institute, 2019; Christoph-Schulz
(UN, 2015), to address the challenges of sustaina- et al., 2018) and a lack of trust in the food sector
ble development. Because of their comprehensive (IPES Food, 2019) all add to the pressure for rapid
7SDGs L ABS
WP 4 REPORT
adaptation. Such concerns are voiced against the and debates as well as company strategies (e.g.
background of projections of continued growth net zero carbon food products).
in the global population, which will result in in- Another important influence during the working
creased demand for food (FAO, 2017). period of WP4 (January 2020-June 2021) was the
At the same time, the agribusiness and food COVID-19-pandemic. This affected the pilot re-
production sector is connected with numerous gions’ agriculture and food production sectors in
SDGs, as it is predicted to deliver more than a various ways (e.g. lack of tourism, working condi-
quarter of the 169 targets associated with the tions in slaughterhouses, dependence on harvest
SDGs (Alphabeta 2016:9). The SDGs must there- workers from abroad).
fore be achieved and complex global problems
addressed as a matter of urgency, and “trans-
1.2. BACKGROUND TO WP4 WITHIN
formative change […] is necessary” (UN Environ-
ment, 2019: 18). Numerous calls are being made
THE SDGS LABS PROJECT
for the transformation of agriculture; however, a WP4, SDGs Co-Learning Labs and Innovation
wide variety of approaches to change and solu- Labs (January 2020-June 2021), is one of the main
tions are under discussion (McNeil, 2019; Béné work packages implementing the project. It is ex-
et al., 2019). perimental in character, by opening and providing
Corporate social responsibility and sustaina- learning spaces. These aim to enable and support
ble business practices in the agricultural context SDG-based innovation and transformation in the
(FAO, 2017) require the incorporation of sustain- agribusiness and food production sector and for-
ability into all processing steps – from field to mats for collaborative learning between compa-
plate at local, regional and international level (cp. nies and HEIs.
FAO, 2017). However, current studies indicate Subsequent to WP1 (Common Knowledge Base
that while a high proportion of businesses (71%) & Needs Analysis), which created a common
are planning to engage with the SDGs, they are knowledge base through desktop and empirical
finding it more difficult to “embed the SDGs into research, and WP3 (Methods: Translation Frame-
strategy” (planned by 41% within five years); in work and Transdisciplinary Learning Environ-
particular, tools to assess companies’ impact on ments), which focused on methods for the labs,
the SDGs are much less widespread (13%) (PWC, WP4 focuses on the detailed planning, practical
2015: 1). implementation, and evaluation of SDGs Innova-
Since the beginning of the project in January tion Labs and SDGs Co-Learning Labs with dif-
2019 and the report on the first work package ferent types of company and a variety of actors
(M12 in 2019), discussions in the political, scien- drawn from agribusiness and food production in
tific and societal sphere, and business activities, all pilot regions. SDGs Innovation Labs (ILs) are
have moved forward. Initiatives include the Euro- multiple learning spaces for pioneer enterprises
pean Green Deal (European Commission, 2019), from the agribusiness and food production sector
one of the European Commission’s six priorities and aim to test methods and tools for facilitating
for 2019-2024, and the EU biodiversity strategy innovation and transformation in such enterpris-
2030 (European Commission, May 2020), which es. SDGs Co-Learning Labs (CLLs) can be seen
is part of the European Green Deal. The renewal as collaborative learning formats between com-
of the EU Common Agricultural Policy framework panies, other agribusiness and food production
(planned for 2023-2027, cp. European Commis- sector stakeholders, and HEIs.
sion, no date), and increasing political pressure Innovation plays a crucial role in sustainable
to achieve climate goals have influenced politics development, as a shift towards sustainability
8I ntroduction
requires more than merely incremental adjust- companies”, who were motivated and willing to
ments, but rather calls for disruptive changes in work with the SDGs to implement them through-
mindsets, behaviours and (business) performance. out their organisation (see chapter 4).
In this regard, start-ups are seen as promising Task 4.3: Four European SDGs Co-Learning
drivers for sustainable development, due to the Labs (D4.2) comprised the organisation and fa-
high probability that they will bring forward dis- cilitation of at least one Co-Learning Lab in each
ruptive and breakthrough innovations (cf. Bergset project region, bringing together HEI represent-
& Fichter, 2015; Dyllick & Muff, 2016; Hockerts & atives, start-up hubs, companies and their inno-
Wüstenhagen, 2010; Iyigün, 2015; Mindt & Rieck- vation ecosystems and related stakeholders (see
mann, 2017; Schaefer et al., 2015; Scharbert & chapter 5).
Stagl, 2014). Task 4.4: Assessment of SDGs Innovation Labs
Developing creative approaches to the integra- and SDGs Co-Learning Labs covers the assess-
tion of the SDGs into the business practices of ment of the outcomes of ILs and CLLs, involv-
the agribusiness and food production sector also ing reflection on the learning of all partners (see
requires new forms of collaboration and co-learn- chapters 4 & 5).
ing in order to increase the transformative po-
tential of individuals, the economy, and society
1.3. AIM OF THE REPORT
as a whole. Co-learning aims to facilitate mutu-
al exchange between different stakeholders and SDGs Laboratory Learning Journey is a report
experts, to close the gap between academia and on the experience of designing, planning, imple-
practice. Bringing together a variety of different menting, and evaluating SDGs laboratories, name-
mindsets, approaches and perspectives enables ly SDGs Innovation Labs and SDGs Co-Learning
problems to be addressed and solved in a trans- Labs, in the pilot regions. It encompasses the ex-
disciplinary setting and allows new and innovative perience of lab participants, lab facilitators and
ideas and solutions to emerge (Hall et al., 2015; organisers.
Pettibone et al., 2018; Scholz, 2020). This report therefore has two aims, a) to assess
The idea of the labs is to create settings and for- the experience of participants from different tar-
mats that allow for such innovation and co-learn- get groups and of lab facilitators and organisers
ing. (assessment report) and b) to share the experi-
ence of the “experimental character” of these lab-
WP4 TASKS AND MAIN ANTICIPATED oratories and the “learning spaces” they provid-
RESULTS ed to the project’s target groups, and to create
Task 4.1: Preparation of the SDGs Labs focused guidance for future SDG-related co-learning and
on the preparation two formats, SDGs Innova- innovation labs. Hence, the experience gained in
tion Labs and SDGs Co-Learning Labs, by a core this work package will not only be relevant to the
group of the consortium, building on methods ongoing and upcoming work of the current project
that the project had already tested (WP3) and and in the consortium beyond the lifetime of the
identified as well-suited to the support of inno- project. Since it makes practical details and learn-
vative and transformative learning processes (see ing points publicly available, it can also be used
chapter 2). to develop future learning spaces for SDG-based
Task 4.2: Four European SDGs Innovation Labs innovation and transformation in the agribusiness
(D4.1) comprised the organisation and facilitation and food production sector and for collaborative
of at least one Innovation Lab in each pilot re- learning formats between companies and HEIs.
gion. These were conducted in so-called “pioneer
9SDGs L ABS
WP 4 REPORT
1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT participants’ and facilitators’ evaluations from all
regions. Likewise, chapter 5 explains the organ-
This report is structured as follows: Chapter isation of the second format, SDGs Co-Learning
2 describes the steps and activities undertaken Labs (CLLs), and identifies learning points. Finally,
to prepare the SDGs laboratories, which are at chapter 6 draws overall conclusions and learning
the centre of this work package. Chapter 3 ex- points from WP4. It compiles learning points of
plains how the evaluation and assessment of the interest to the different target groups addressed
SDGs laboratories was organized, including the in this report, namely companies and entrepre-
different methods chosen for evaluation and the neurs from the agribusiness and food production
methods used to assess the evaluation data gath- sector, and for HEI stakeholders working in the
ered. Chapter 4 provides insights into the SDGs field of innovation and co-learning in the sector
Innovation Labs (ILs), the lab format within sin- with regard to the SDGs.
gle enterprises, and draws learning points from
their organisation, including the assessment of
102. PREPARATION OF SDGs LABORATORIES
Comparatively few tasks and deliverables were “Concept of SDGs Innovation Labs and SDGs
determined in advance for WP4. Therefore, the Co-Learning Labs”, which included a shared un-
activities involved with preparing the design and derstanding of the different lab formats, aims, out-
implementation of the SDGs laboratories were line, participants and methodological approach.
developed over the lifetime of the WP and were The core group also organised a capacity building
adapted depending on need and questions that series, consisting of seven workshops to develop
arose. The activities included several regular the capacities of the consortium to facilitate labs
meetings of a core group of consortium partners. and to enhance the exchange of knowledge, ex-
The start of this work package was supported by perience and methods within the consortium (see
two workshops that helped to clarify the aims of 2.3).
the WP, to agree common aims and to identify
resources within the group as well as any open
2.2. CONCEPT OF SDGS INNOVATION
questions. The workshops took place on March
9-10, 2020 (online workshop to kick-off WP4)
AND CO-LEARNING LABS
and May 25-27, 2020. The latter was originally The Concept of SDGs Innovation and Co-Learn-
planned as a face-to-face meeting in Vila Real, ing Labs is a document developed jointly by all
Portugal, and included 1.5 days dedicated to WP4; members of the core group. It includes a shared
however, this had to be converted into an online understanding of the different lab formats, aims,
meeting due to the situation with the pandemic. outline, participants and methodological ap-
proach. As agreed in the workshop on March
9-10, 2020, the labs in different regions all follow
2.1. CORE GROUP
the same approach for all partners. But since the
A WP4 core group of consortium partners was local context and conditions may differ between
established to design and prepare the SDGs lab- regions, the methods deployed in the different
oratories. The group comprised the WP leader labs may vary and the common approach outlined
(P2 University of Vechta), P3 Terra Institute and below will need to be adapted.
P4 CEIFA Coop, and was also supported by WU,
Iseki, UTAD and RegiaDouro. Hence, all partners 2.2.1. SDGS INNOVATION LABS
that were themselves organising and facilitating
ILs and CLLs were included in the joint lab design An SDGs Innovation Lab (IL) consists of several
process and could profit from each other’s expe- (2-4) workshops (possibly including online meet-
rience. ings). The target group for ILs is “pioneer compa-
The core group contributed to the WP by de- nies”, with a range of participants attending from
veloping what was subsequently known as the a single company. “Labs” are an innovative and
11SDGs L ABS
WP 4 REPORT
experimental approach, and the “pioneer com- non-company participants (e.g. from politics and
panies” to which they are suited are companies civil society) were also invited.
that already have some experience of working The aim of the CLLs was to generate new ideas
with the SDGs and are willing to innovate and be for innovation by drawing on the different perspec-
inspired by the SDGs. The idea was to involve tives of heterogeneous participants. Co-learning
departments that have decision-making power in is a way of learning with and from each other on
relation to internal processes and the implemen- an equal footing, where everyone benefits, or at
tation of SDGs. least should be able to benefit, though obvious-
To foster innovation, it was important to apply ly everyone will take different, individual learning
innovative methods. In the context of such an points away from their participation. As far as the
innovative approach it was important to include relationship between company and non-company
less analytical and structured elements, because stakeholders in the labs was concerned, widen-
innovative ideas can be fostered through methods ing the horizon, bringing in new perspectives and
that embrace creativity and the emotions. This is representing the demands of a wider group of so-
especially relevant, as the SDGs can appear very cietal stakeholders allows non-company partic-
abstract to participants, especially when working ipants to stimulate, support and encourage the
with them and if they are new to them. Innovation process of business innovation.
can be drawn in particular from a holistic view of As the CLLs aimed to bring together diverse tar-
the SDGs and from the consideration of new top- get groups, it was necessary to ensure that all
ics. Consequently, the ILs addressed not only the participants could contribute during the labs and
“low-hanging fruit” but also several (or even all) feel comfortable speaking up. It was therefore im-
SDGs. However, at the same time prioritisation portant to be aware of and seek information on
was necessary, because not all of the 17 goals possible power imbalances and dependencies
can be tackled at the same time and they may not during the preparation phase for the labs. Like all
all be equally relevant to individual companies. learning processes, the labs are composed of dif-
ferent phases in terms of a) group dynamics, and
2.2.2. SDGS CO-LEARNING LABS b) content. Both aspects needed to be considered
when choosing appropriate methods. One CLL
It was planned to conduct at least one SDGs consisted of (at least) two half-day workshops.
Co-Learning Lab (CLL) in each pilot region, aim- For the detailed concept, see the online annex.
ing to prompt innovation and transformation pro-
cesses and to facilitate long-term collaboration
2.3. CAPACITY BUILDING
and knowledge exchange between business and
academia, tackling common problems and oppor- Capacity building comprised a series of work-
tunities related to the application of the SDGs in shops established by WP4 leaders (P2 Universi-
the agribusiness and food production sector. The ty of Vechta) to boost the capacity of consortium
CLL target groups were HEIs, start-up hubs, com- members to organise and facilitate ILs and CLLs.
panies and their innovation ecosystems and re- It consisted of seven online workshops (Table 1).
lated stakeholders (such as customers, suppliers, Each event was evaluated by WP6 leaders (P4
intermediaries). Building on insights from WP1, CEIFAcoop) and the results were fed into WP6.
12P R E PA R AT I O N O F S D G s laboratories
No. Date (CET) Topic Facilitators
1 Tuesday, 28.7., Learning to think the future - possible Prof. Dr. Marco Rieckmann, Univer-
13-17h applications of the Future Workshop sity of Vechta
method in SDGs Labs
2 Tuesday, 28.7. Utopian thinking and Walt Disney Hannah Frost, WU
10-11.30h method
3 Wednesday, 30.9., 12-14h Group Dynamics and Team Facilita- Lukas Scherak, University of Vechta
tion
4 Wednesday, 30.9., 15-17h, and Design thinking Hannah Frost & Danijela Grubnic, WU
Thursday 1.10., 11-14h
5 Thursday,15.10., 10-12h Labs as Online Events (Plan B) Larissa Jaeger, Prof. Dr. Marco
Rieckmann, Lukas Scherak, Univer-
sity of Vechta
6 Tuesday, 20.10. 10-12h SDGs methods Johanna Bernhardt & Tanya Deporta,
Terra Institute
7 Monday, 16.11., 9.00-12.30h Scenario building Dr. Simon Burandt, Leuphana Univer-
sity of Lüneburg, Germany
Table 1: WP4 Capacity Building series
2.4. KEY INSIGHTS FOR THE ensure that the aims of the formats would still be
IMPLEMENTATION OF LABS achieved in the online environment.
Further learning points from the preparation
The pandemic situation in autumn/winter phase for ILs were that it is important to adapt
2020/21 meant that almost all labs – in contrast to the company’s needs to make participation in
to the original plans – had to take place online, an IL attractive to them and to make the benefits
and it was necessary to adapt the workshops. The evident. Therefore, no one fixed concept was ap-
most important learning points included the need plied to all regions; the ILs were adapted to the re-
for flexibility in adapting methods and content to quirements in the different regions. For the CLLs,
the online environment. The first requirement was in some regions follow-up activities had already
that online video conferencing tools and other been envisioned in the planning phase. For both
communication tools had to be convenient both lab formats, a common evaluation approach was
for facilitators and for participants. Methods also developed with questions that were suitable for
had to be adapted where especially creative and all regions, despite the differences in the methods
interactive approaches were involved, in order to used in the labs, the focus on different SDGs or
sustainability challenges and the different com-
pany structures in the various pilot regions.
133. APPROACH TO THE EVALUATION OF LABS
The evaluation of labs was based on the idea developed and jointly agreed within the consor-
that it was necessary to assess the learning and tium.
experiences of participants and facilitators with Three different questionnaires were sent to par-
both lab formats across all pilot regions. To this ticipants in the ILs and CLLs. The participant
end, a range of evaluation tools and formats were questionnaires were translated into German and
combined. The learning experience was evaluat- Portuguese, and set up as Google surveys, to
ed in the course of the labs to enable immediate which links were sent to participants by the facili-
responses and continuous adaptation to partic- tators of the relevant labs in their regions 1 .
ipants’ needs. Likewise, the experience in dif- The first questionnaire (prior to labs) was identi-
ferent regions was compared by using the same cal for ILs and CLLs despite the different types of
Lab participants from all regions Lab facilitators from all regions
Questionnaire with closed and open questions (online sur- Notes kept of all lab workshops
vey), standardised:
Questionnaires with closed and open questions (online sur-
• Prior to the lab vey) after all lab workshops
• After workshop 1
• After workshop 2 (if more than 2 workshops) Focus group (including a shared session with all facilitators,
• After all workshops and a specific session for ILs and CLLs)
Table 2: Evaluation methods used for both lab formats
questionnaires in all regions. The evaluation of organisation involved, and included questions on
the labs is strongly linked to the evaluation work • familiarity with sustainability
package (WP7), which made a significant contri- • familiarity with the SDGs
bution to the development of evaluation methods • motivation to participate in the labs and what
and to the analysis of quantitative data. As the participants expected to take away; data on
labs provided important moments of interaction the type of organisation, the stage of the val-
and cooperation with external parties, namely IL ue chain their organisation represented and
and CLL participants, it was important to get their the department they worked in.
perspectives on the work of the project, and es-
pecially on the labs as innovation and co-learning
formats. The evaluation methods (Table 2) were
1 Participants in the CLL in South Portugal were sent the pre-questionnaire in English and in Word format, as the translated
Google survey was not yet ready. The participants in the IL in Germany were sent the (translated) pre-questionnaire in Word format
as this was expected to increase the response rate due to internal procedures to prepare participants for this lab.
14A pproach to the evaluation of labs
A short questionnaire after each lab workshop, The questionnaires for facilitators included
included questions on questions organised into five thematic areas:
• Workshop organisation (general organisa- • General organisation of the workshops,
tion, duration), • Participant engagement and exchange,
• Knowledge exchange with other partici- • Methods used in the workshops, including
pants, and group size, customised material and methods used, ap-
• Whether expectations of the workshop were proaches applied to work with the SDGs and
met. an evaluation of this approach,
• Organisation in their team,
Open questions were asked on: • Ideas for improvement and follow-up, and
• Aspects they had found especially interest- • Data on their affiliation and role in the work-
ing, shops.
• Suggestions for the next workshop. Beyond this, a “note keeping document” was
used as a simplified observation sheet. All lab
The questionnaire completed after all lab work- facilitators were asked to make notes of impor-
shops included questions on tant observations during the labs or directly af-
• The general organisation of the workshops, terwards.
• Workshop topics (including questions on A focus group with 13 lab facilitators from all
sustainability related challenges: sustaina- five pilot regions was organised after all labs had
bility challenges for the company for the ILs, been finalised (on March 30, 2021). This focus
and challenges defined jointly with all partic- group was additional to the questionnaires and
ipants for the CLLs), note keeping, and aimed to deepen insights into
• ‘Exchange between participants and net- learning about the approaches chosen to imple-
working’ supplemented facilitators’ views on ment the SDGs, with the support of co-learning
exchanges among the participants, and initiation of innovation in the different lab set-
• ‘Personal data’ asked about participants’ tings.
organisation type, stage of the value chain/ The evaluation data collected was subjected
sector and department worked in, and role in both to quantitative and to qualitative analysis. A
the organisation. more in-depth description of the evaluation and
assessment methods can be found in the online
annex.
154. LEARNING POINTS FROM SDGs INNOVATION
LABS
As it is the aim of this report to describe the asked about how familiar they were with 1) sus-
learning journey of participants in and facilitators tainability (4-level Likert-scale ranging from 1=“I
of ILs and to assess their experience, an overview haven’t heard of it.” to 4=“Sustainability is already
of the activities undertaken in the labs, as well as a part of my work.”) and 2) with the SDGs (4-lev-
insights from participants and facilitators are set el Likert-scale ranging from 1=“I haven’t heard of
out below. them.” to 4 =“I already work with them.”). While
most IL participants were already familiar with
the SDGs prior to the lab (25 persons answered 3
4.1. PARTICIPANT MOTIVATION AND
or 4), 7 (of 36) participants reported no previous
KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO THE LABS knowledge, and the average value was 2.9. Famil-
Before the start of the ILs, short questionnaires iarity with the SDGs was 2.44 on average, hence
were sent to participants. These aimed to give fa- slightly lower than for sustainability, with only 4
cilitators an insight into the specific motivation participants reporting that they already worked
and interest of their prospective participants, and with them. Levels of prior knowledge varied be-
to allow facilitators to prepare for participants’ tween regions 2 , and by the composition of partic-
prior knowledge, deal with their expectations and ipants, e.g. their roles in the company.
adapt workshops where necessary. Prospective participants were also asked about
Q1. How familiar are you with sustainability? Q2. How familiar are you with to the Sustainable
7
Development Goals (SDGs)?
I haven't heard of it. 4
5
I haven't heard of them.
15 I have heard of it.
4
I have heard of them.
I know it, but do not work with it.
I know them, but do not work
10
Sustainability is already a part of with them.
my work.
17 I already work with them.
10
Figure 1: Responses of IL participants from all regions on prior knowledge of sustainability and the SDGs
before the start of the labs.
In the questionnaire before the start of the ILs their motivation (drop-down list, including op-
(answers from all regions n=36), participants were tion for “other”) and were asked “What would
2 Average prior knowledge of sustainability reported, by region: Vienna: 4, Vechta: 2,78, South Tyrol: 2,86, North Portugal: 2,67,
South Portugal: 3,5. Average prior knowledge of the SDGs reported, by region: Vienna: 2,33, Vechta: 2,44, South Tyrol: 3,00, North
Portugal: 1,67, South Portugal: 3,00
16L earning points from S D G s I nnovation L abs
you like to take away from the workshop?” The 4.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF SDGS
most common response (9 replies) expressed in- INNOVATION LABS
terest in learning about specific approaches for
implementing the SDGs in their own work or com- Between November 2020 and February 2021,
pany. Equally popular (9 replies) was acquiring four ILs were implemented in the different pilot
knowledge about the goals and getting input on regions. An additional IL was implemented in
that topic. Participants from the Vechta region in Northern Portugal in March 2021, making a total
particular cited an interest in personal contribu- of five ILs.
tions to sustainability in everyday life (7 out of As envisaged in the Concept of SDGs Innovation
18 participants from this region). This might have and Co-Learning Labs, a diverse range of pioneer
been related to the task of calculating their per- companies were recruited to participate in these
sonal ecological footprint that was distributed for innovation formats, differing in terms of size (from
preparation before the lab, to serve as a starting about 26 to more than 6000 employees), company
point for a discussion. Several participants said type (start-ups, small family-run businesses, co-
they were looking for ideas and inspiration for fur- operatives and big enterprise), and agribusiness
ther activities and processes. Interest in learning and food production sectors; they also had var-
about other participants’ perspectives and expe- ying experience of the SDGs and with sustaina-
rience was cited only three times, and teambuild- bility. This provided the opportunity to draw on a
ing only once. variety of learning journeys that would be of inter-
Details relating to average prior knowledge and est for different target groups. Details of the com-
the diversity of companies showed that the ILs panies that cooperated with the implementation
in the pilot regions addressed a variety of com- of the ILs are provided in the company profiles
panies and participants. Labs needed to find ap- (see Annex).
proaches to suit their interests and background. Although ILs were based around a common ap-
However, pre-evaluation also revealed that par- proach, as outlined in the Concept of SDGs In-
ticipants were generally highly motivated to join novation and Co-Learning Labs (cp. 2.2), they
the learning journey. still needed to adapt the methods and tools they
used in order to reflect the different participants
involved, the profiles of the companies, and the
aims and desired outcomes that had motivated
them to participate in these experimental for-
mats. All labs but one were held online due to the
Innovation Lab Vienna Vechta (Olden- South Tyrol North Portugal South Portugal
VI burg Münster- ST NP SP
land)
VE
dates 7.12.20, 14.12.20, 27.01.21, 5.02.21, 11.12.20, 26.02.21 11.03.21, 12.03.21 21.01.21, 3.02.21,
15.02.21 12.02.21 10.02.21
format online online online in person online
participants 4/3/4 17/17/15 7/6 6/6/6 3/3
participating start-up / vegan company that Family-run hotel olive-oil produc- support and ser-
company restaurant and produces and ing company vices cooperative
food provider markets poultry
specialties
Table 3: SDGs Innovation Labs
17SDGs L ABS
WP 4 REPORT
pandemic situation. This was a major organisa- open questions. In total 20 questionnaires were
tional change, as it was the first time a number of filled out. Analyses were carried out in line with
the facilitators and many of the participants had the methods described in chp.3.
been involved with online workshops that lasted
several hours and used interactive methods and DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
tools. The number of participants ranged from 3 In order to present the (selected) results of de-
to 17 individuals. Usually, as had been envisaged, scriptive statistics, the questions were divided
the same individuals participated in all IL work- into three groups: I. workshop organisation; II.
shops, with only a few variations. Examples of knowledge about and work with the SDGs; and
IL workshop design including methods and tools III. interaction between participants. 4
used have been included in the Annex, and the
designs of all lab workshops are available in the Question Group I – Workshop organisation
online annex. Participants from all countries considered over-
Table 3 gives an overview of all ILs. Details of all workshop organisation (issues such as timing
participating companies can be found in the com- or technical equipment) to be satisfactory (North
pany profiles in the Annex. Portugal (NP) and South Portugal (SP)) or very
Workshop Organisation
Organisation Duration Group size Meeting Global
expectations
South Tyrol 4 4 4 4 4
Vienna 4 4 4 4 4
North Portugal 3.5 3 3 3 3
South Portugal 3 3 3 3 3
Vechta 3 3 4 3 3
Table 4: Summary of results from question group I of the SDGs Innovation Labs questionnaires. Results are presented as mean
values of the answers provided by participants in the different ILs.
4.3. RESULTS OF IL EVALUATION satisfactory (South Tyrol (Ty) and Vienna (Vi)) (see
table). Other WS parameters that were analysed,
ANALYSIS
namely duration, group size, meeting participants’
expectations and contents (Qs 1,3,4 5 ) were rated
4.3.1. ANALYSIS OF IL PARTICIPANTS’ overall as good (NP and SP) or very good (Ty and
EVALUATION Vi) by participants.
IL participants’ learning journeys were evalu- Question Group II – Knowledge about and work
ated through analysis of their answers to ques- with the SDGs
tionnaires before and after the ILs. The analysis The second group of questions aimed to as-
of IL participants’ questionnaires after all work- sess how participants’ relationship to the SDGs
shops, composed of 18 questions (cp. online changed during the labs (Q6). It asked if the
Annex), includes a statistical analysis of closed
questions 3 and a qualitative analysis of selected 4 More comprehensive statistical analyses, including
descriptive statistics, Cluster Analysis and Redundancy Com-
3 Further results of statistical analysis, including cluster anal- ponents Analysis can be found in the online annex.
ysis, principal components analysis and multivariate and dis- 5 Question numbers according to questionnaire, cp. online
criminant statistical analysis can be found in the online annex. annex.
18L earning points from S D G s I nnovation L abs
workshops had helped to improve knowledge on was to raise participants’ awareness of the fact
the SDGs and associated targets, if participants that they were already using and applying some
had been familiarised with examples of their im- or all of the SDGs. All participants agreed that
plementation in practice, if the workshops had they had learned about their application and ex-
provided insights into how to apply the goals in pressed strong agreement that the SDGs provid-
their companies or organisations, or if they had ed direction for the agricultural and food sector.
realised they were already applying (some) SDGs
in their work. Participants were also asked if they Question Group III – Participant interaction
thought the SDGs could help provide direction With regard to interactions between lab partici-
for the agribusiness and food production sec- pants, it should be highlighted that the responses
tor. In all countries surveyed, the results confirm of partners on ILs and the “concept of IL and CLL”
that participants felt the IL allowed them to dis- (cp. chp. 2.2) indicated that workshops should be
cuss the SDGs and their targets in a very effec- developed in close collaboration with a business
tive way (very good for Ty, Vi, and SP, and good or start-up, in order to be appropriate to partic-
for NP). When asked about how well they felt the ipants’ backgrounds and expectations, and indi-
labs provided the opportunity to familiarise them- vidual companies’ aims with regard to the IL. An-
selves with practical examples of implementing other important aspect is that ideally, participants
Knowledge about and work with the SDGs
SDGs Examples of Able to apply Already apply SDGs as
Knowledge implementation SDGs direction for the
sector
South Tyrol 4 3 3 3.5 3.5
Vienna 4 3.5 3.5 4 4
North Portugal 3 3 3.5 3 3.5
South Portugal 4 4 3 3 4
Vechta 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 3.5
Table 5: Summary of results from question group II, presented as mean values of the answers provided by participants in the
different ILs.
the SDGs into their daily business, only SP partic- should be drawn from different departments and
ipants agreed strongly that they had. Participants types of jobs within companies. The survey in-
from other regions ‘agreed’ that the IL had fa- cluded questions about the interest value and rel-
miliarised them with examples. This point should evance of material, and the inspirational power
be taken into consideration in the preparation of of the WS, and interaction between participants.
future workshops, as it is likely that participants The results of the questionnaires were very simi-
accord high importance to this parameter. Par- lar for ILs in different regions. For all parameters,
ticipants in all countries scored their ability to participants rated the quality of interaction, the
apply the SDGs in their daily businesses life as interest value and relevance of the material, and
3 – agreeing with the question. If one of the aims the inspirational power of the WS, as very good.
of the project and the WS is to familiarise partici- One of the main conclusions from this analysis
pants with how to apply SDGs in their businesses, is that the preparation phase of this work package
it is important to understand how this parameter (Task 4.1, chp.2.), where the type and models of
can be improved. One important aim of the labs labs were thoroughly discussed and the methods
19SDGs L ABS
WP 4 REPORT
Participants interlinkage
Interesting Relevant Inspiring Interactive Overwhelming
South Tyrol 4 4 3.5 3.5 2
Vienna 4 4 4 4 1.5
North Portugal 3.5 3 3.5 3 2
South Portugal 4 4 3 4 2
Vechta 3.5 2 2.5 3 1.5
Table 6: Summary of results from question group III, presented as mean values of the answers provided by participants in the
different ILs.
to be used were chosen, building on the meth- explanatory variables, the analysis shows sepa-
ods and insights arising from WP3, delivered very ration by organisation size, with smaller organisa-
good outcomes. The results indicate that despite tions (L earning points from S D G s I nnovation L abs
organising content and identifying methodologies one participant urged for “addressing burning is-
for ILs. sues in a more targeted way” (ILa303).
Asked for main takeaways from the discussion
ANALYSIS OF OPEN QUESTIONS OF IL with other participants (Q9, 14 responses), the
PARTICIPANTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE AFTER sharing and learning about each other ideas was
ALL WORKSHOPS responded most frequently (6), while one partic-
To complement the quantitative analysis, select- ipant recognised the similarity of their visions.
ed open questions were analysed qualitatively, for Three individuals (from VI and ST) described that
getting insights on highlights of the labs reported an output could be taken away from the IL: con-
by the participants (Q2.), ideas for improvement crete proposals for implementation and that a re-
(Q3.), envisaged follow up activities to work with alistic output was generated. Other respondents
the SDGs after the end of the labs (Q7.), main (5) described more global insights on the imple-
takeaways from the discussion (Q9.) and benefits mentation of sustainability, e.g. to involve the
generated for the organisations by taking part in staff in their organisation more in this, that great
the labs (Q10.). effort from society and stakeholders is need-
Regarding Q2. “When now looking at all work- ed to achieve the SDGs and the path of “recog-
shops (all labs), which were in your opinion high- nising-planning-implementing” as a take away.
lights?“ (14 responses 6 ) participants of one lab These answers appear slightly contrasting to the
often gave similar responses – here obviously, the responses of the ideas for follow-up activities for
different foci and approaches in methods in the working with the SDGs described below (Q7).
different labs become significant. While the great Enquired on what benefits arose from the par-
facilitation, tools used in the online lab and the im- ticipation according to their perspective (Q10,
pact on teambuilding were highlighted by VI par- 14 responses), several (5) participants described
ticipants, 3 of 4 NP participants welcomed the ex- specific impulses they gained on how to apply the
change of knowledge and opinions that occurred, SDGs in their organisation, more generally, ideas
and the development of sustainability assessment for innovation in the future or saw it the IL an
tool for technologies as a concrete output created opportunity to question „the whole thing“ (likely
in SP was appreciated by 2 of 3 respondents. As implying, the way their organisation relates to the
it is interesting for this work package, the SDGs global goals). Three reported knowledge gained
were only named once in 14 responses, but work as a major benefit, while three other individuals
in small groups and in general insights into the referred to more specific outcomes, like acceler-
topics of the labs each twice. ating the implementation process and the formu-
Only few ideas for improvement were mentioned. lation of a clear sustainability strategy that was
From 13 responses, six expressed no need for im- achieved. Regarding the atmosphere, three oth-
provement or that everything was great, the seven ers mentioned the labs as supportive for freely
remaining were minor suggestions, e.g. that the exchanging ideas and for team building.
labs could be held at shorter intervals (with one As the translation into the day-to-day business
month interval). Single participants suggested to was a core intention of this work package, the
increase the initial information for a better prepa- insights into the question on whether participants
ration, to create a “content library with great pro- have any ideas on follow-up activities for work-
jects, best practices and inspiration” (ILa102) and ing with the SDGs (Q7, 13 responses) was of high
interest for the evaluation of the labs. Five par-
ticipants stated to have no ideas. In the ques-
6 Quotes were translated into English by the authors and are tionnaire only two individuals named concrete
assigned with index numbers per individual.
21SDGs L ABS
WP 4 REPORT
ideas namely, the introduction of an electric car was to figure out which methods and approaches
within one year, and awareness raising activities are suited to working with SDGs in a corporate
for already implemented practices. Other answers context, translating them into the business envi-
were confirming that the elaboration of the SDGs ronment and promoting innovation.
was useful and a good guideline, or that there are As described in chapter 3, facilitators evaluated
many ideas without specifying them. At this point, ILs on the basis of a questionnaire that includ-
it appears interesting that the responses of the ed closed questions (using a 4-level Likert-scale)
consequently analysed questions Q9 and Q10 on and open questions, and was completed after
main takeaways and benefits do in several cas- all labs had been concluded. A focus group was
es point to more concrete follow-up sustainability also held with facilitators of all labs to promote in
activities. However, it is remarkable that IL partic- depth discussion, and “note keeping” documents
ipants at this point did not necessarily consider recording major observations during each work-
them as a contribution to the SDGs. It seems also shop, complementing later overall observations,
worth noting the perspective of IL facilitators, were also taken into account. The key findings
pointing out that outcomes of a lab might show from these data are presented below.
more clearly after a longer period after the labs.
4.3.2. ANALYSIS OF IL FACILITATORS’ RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS
EVALUATION Evaluation of the questionnaire completed by
IL facilitators was undertaken by n= 12 individu-
In addition to participants’ evaluation, an eval- als. Three organisations (RegiaDouro, Terra, Uni
uation of IL facilitators’ experience and learning Vechta) were represented by three persons each,
was conducted, as the aim of this work package
Workshop Organisation
Organisation Duration How WS took place Online tool Clarifications and
online tool
4 (3-4) 3 (2-3) 1 (1-3) 4 (3-4) 4 (2-4)
Discussion among participants
Suiting to the ques- Relevant for the Interesting to other Stimulating new Pointing to further
tions topic participants ideas relevant questions
3 (2-4) 3.5 (3-4) 3 (2-4) 3 (3-4) 3 (2-4)
Engagement of participants and knowledge exchange
Group size WS1 Group size WS2 Participants Diversity of partici- Knowledge
engagement pants exchange
3 (2-3) 3 (2-3) 3.5 (3-4) 3 (1-3) 3 (2-4)
Table 7: Summary of results of questionnaires provided by IL facilitators from all regions, presented as mean values. Minimum
and maximum values observed are displayed in parentheses.
22L earning points from S D G s I nnovation L abs
and three organisations (WU, Iseki, CEIFACoop) following categories: open attitudes on the part
were represented by one person. 7, 8 of individuals and an open working atmosphere
With regard to workshop organisation, a crucial (listening to others’ perspectives, ideas and ex-
change to the initial concept was that all ILs but periences) (ILF018, ILF033, ILF072); ILs providing
one had to take place online. Despite this being a useful setting to come up with and develop new
the first experience for all facilitators with con- ideas (ILF053, ILF072, ILF082) and to exchange
ducting workshops as exclusively online formats knowledge on sustainability activities and chal-
over several days (and for many it was also their lenges facing companies (ILF021, ILF033, ILF053,
first ever experience of conducting online work- ILF117) and individuals (ILF117); and where there
shops), overall evaluation of the experience was was sufficient time, the progression within the IL
positive. Facilitators highlighted that detailed from isolated sustainability activities towards a
planning was required and that tasks needed to broader perspective (ILF107, ILF094).
be divided within the team in order to ensure One crucial question for this work package,
smooth processes. However, issues such as tech- which was widely discussed in the preparation
nical difficulties and participants not attending for (see chp. 2.2) and in the questionnaire to IL facili-
the whole period mean that it is important to be tators (Q11, 11.1., 11.2) was how to work with the
prepared to adapt as ILs progress. SDGs in the specific setting of the particular lab.
Quantitative analysis showed that according to It was important to find out whether it was helpful
the facilitators’ point of view, the “workshop or- to focus on a specific issue to make the goals
ganisation”, “the online tool” and “clarifications” more tangible, and in that case whether the focus
were well received. The engagement of partici- should be determined by participants or facilita-
pants and thus knowledge exchange among par- tors (Q12, 12.1., 12.2).
ticipants was seen as either good or improve- All five ILs identified very different thematic foci
ments can be made. The discussion among the to address the SDGs in an educational format to
participants was much “suited to the questions suit their future participants. The approaches are
asked”, also “relevant for the topic” and “interest- outlined briefly below, to provide an overview of
ing to other participants”, “stimulating new ide- the ranges of options for addressing the SDGs
as” and “pointing to further relevant questions”. with companies:
There was overall satisfaction with the methods • Focus on working on an online platform,
used in the workshop. The aspects of “time man- even though ultimately more central out-
agement”, “quality of ideas” and impact in partic- comes related to other sustainability activ-
ipants’ vision of the SDGs can be improved. ities over the forthcoming year. Approach
Qualitative analysis of open questions of ques- used: „Dreaming - Doing - Reflecting“ (over
tionnaires shows that facilitators’ responses on the three WS of the IL),
what they considered most remarkable about • Focus on selected SDGs (12 and 13, “Sus-
the exchange and discussion between partici- tainable consumption and production” and
pants (Q8, 12 responses) can be divided into the “Climate action”), which were then applied
to participants’ work,
7 The survey was not completed by UTAD representatives, as • Following an introduction providing a broad-
in their region, SDGs Innovation Labs were facilitated by Regi- er understanding of the goals, a tool for as-
aDouro and Co-learning Labs were facilitated by UTAD. Wiesen-
sessing the sustainability of new technolo-
hof representatives did not fill out the facilitator questionnaire
either, as the IL in Oldenburg Münsterland was organised at the gies was developed, as a practical way of
Wiesenhof/PHW Group premises, and hence they undertook applying the SDGs,
the evaluation as participants.
8 References in brackets refer to the index numbers assigned
to all questionnaires submitted.
23SDGs L ABS
WP 4 REPORT
• In two pilot regions, there was no preselect- organisation’s internal vision, which was linked to
ed focus. In one region, participant groups sustainability and the organisation’s impact in a
were asked to choose topics to work on, and broader way (ILF021)). “We didn’t emphasise the
to relate to the SDGs; in the other, the chal- SDGs too much, but when we did, it was benefi-
lenge of plastic waste and other pollutants cial and sparked new ideas and potential fields of
emerged over the course of the lab. action for the team” (ILF021).
Reasons for deciding on these approaches in- Despite the different approaches chosen, all fa-
cluded involving participants and companies in cilitators reported that they were very satisfied (7
the decision on the focus topic in order make answers) or satisfied with their approach (5 an-
them reflect on where they might have the big- swers). This can be interpreted as indicating that
gest impact (ILF033); identifying a clear objective there is no single preferred approach to the SDGs
for the workshop (ILF018); and motivating partic- for all labs, but that the approach needs to be
ipants and enabling them to generate new ide- suitable for the participants and the aims of indi-
as (ILF072, ILF082). Others said their choice was vidual labs.
based on the desire to work on something con-
crete and generate outcomes, and “to meet the
need to bring sustainable innovations to the work RESULTS OF FOCUS GROUP ANALYSIS
carried out” in the organisation (ILF094). To gain deeper insight into the experience of
With regard to the approach taken to SDGs the facilitators beyond the questionnaire, a focus
(Q11-11.2), four labs chose to integrate all SDGs, group was held with facilitators of all labs after
and one worked with selected SDGs (12 & 13). all labs had concluded (cp. chp. 3). The most key
However, all labs found specific ways of ap- insights are summarized below.
proaching the somewhat abstract goals and de- In a first general session, facilitators reflected
livered on the aim of making them tangible for together on both lab formats. Even though this
companies and possibly using them to stimulate chapter addresses the learning journey made in
innovation. One interesting point raised by sev- ILs, as several insights from the focus group are
eral IL facilitators (ILF021, ILF033) was that they significant for both formats they are hence illus-
did not consider it feasible or productive to fo- trated in the following, without being repeated in
cus on all SDGs throughout the lab; another was chapter 5.
where this was not done, more profound analysis Facilitators were asked to reflect on what they
would have been useful (ILF072). This seems to had found most remarkable in the labs. Several fa-
run counter to the aim of working on specific pro- cilitators referred to the methodologies used and
jects and developing concrete approaches to put the online format: communication with partici-
them into practice in a business context. Differ- pants before and during the labs, and the ac-
ent approaches were chosen to deal with this (di- tive participation despite labs taking place on-
lemma): a) working only with selected SDGs (“We line, was seen as remarkable. Facilitators also
prioritised the SDGs together and as we wanted viewed the concrete ideas emerging from labs,
to initiate concrete projects in a short time, the participants’ openness towards working with new
focus on a few SDGs made sense.“ (ILF033), or b) SDG-based methods and their commitment to
working at first with all SDGs for an overview, and working with the SDGs as remarkable features of
then focussing on selected ones (ILF043, ILF053), both lab formats. Finally, several facilitators men-
or c) working with the SDGs in an integrated way, tioned the need for a follow-up meeting for both
but not focussing solely on them, instead re- lab formats, to see how the ideas that emerged
lating more to sustainability in general (e.g. the were developing. On the question, “From your
24You can also read
