Abstract

Abstract
In recent decades, concerns about sustainability and environmental crises have emerged as major global challenges, indicating the need for significant changes in human activities and the educational systems that support them. Higher education, as one of the most powerful social institutions, must play a vital role in cultivating the knowledge, attitudes, and values that support sustainable development ideas. The “Green University” theme, which has been gaining momentum, describes the institution which has adopted as central to its policies the principle of integration for research, education, and public work dimensions of the university along lines suggesting recycling of nature, economy, and education. This will mean in practice the development of “green curricula” and attempts to bring the educational process into line with environmental ethics, social justice, global citizenship, and ecological responsibility.
This study attempts to apply the meaning of eco-labels to the undergraduate curriculum in Sustainable Agricultural Extension and Education in Iran. It was intended to reveal the extent to which formally recognized courses recognize the principles of a green curriculum. This study is significant because of the unique nature of the agricultural sector and the dual role of society — as both a victim of environmental imbalance and a key agent in restoring it. It also highlights the crucial role of education in preparing future professionals to promote sustainability in agriculture.
A qualitative document analysis was conducted. The entire official curriculum of the Sustainable Agricultural Extension and Education program, including general aims, rationale, graduate competencies, course requirements, and course syllabuses for general, basic, specialized, elective, and concentration courses, were studied using conceptual content analysis. Fourteen keywords covering essential dimensions of a green curriculum were selected from international studies (Boman & Andersson, 2013; Xiong et al, 2013; Okanović et al., 2021), including sustainability, development, equity, justice, moral responsibility, environmental, global, social, and citizenship, and each course syllabus was analyzed for the presence and frequency of these keywords or their conceptual substitution. Courses were then designated as to the degree to which they were green: (1) fully green (over 50% of content dealt explicitly with sustainability), (2) relatively green (under 50%), and (3) non-green (no sustainable themes). The reliability of coding was verified by independent coding of three experts, and inter-rater agreement ascertained through Fleiss' Kappa coefficient (0.83) indicated high reliability, establishing validity of the eco-labeling technique.
Though overall objectives and introductory sections cover values stressing sustainability, protection of the environment, and social responsibility of graduates, this relationship decreases at the level of course content. Of the 22 general education courses required by the Ministry of Science, only two—Philosophy of Ethics and Psychology of Ethical Living—were fully green, each having over 50% of content strictly concerned with moral responsibility, social interaction, and environmental ethics. All others were relatively green, with content from 10% to 40%. This implies general courses were not utilized sufficiently for promoting thinking about social responsibility and human inter-relation which could lead to awareness of sustainability problems of society. In the group of basic courses, common to all agricultural majors, none are fully green. Only two—Biology and Ecology—give slight evidence of environmental sustainability (8–9%), which leads to the conclusion that even fundamental scientific courses do not touch agriculture as related to ecology and environmental sustainability. Since these courses form the conceptual basis for understanding natural systems and agricultural endeavors, students are inadequately prepared for knowledge of environmental problems.
The 26 specialized core courses (73 credits) were analyzed; ten had sustainability-related concepts but none were fully green. Courses such as Principles of Agricultural Extension for Sustainability and Natural Resources, Principles of Environmental and Agricultural Education (relatively green), and Innovation and Sustainable Communication contained a green percentage factor of 15–44%. This is significant as the word "sustainable" is in the program title. Consequently, the gap between the program's intent for a sustainable approach and actual depth of environmental content is apparent. Elective courses were relatively more favorable. Of 21 elective courses (42 credits) 16 contained sustainability concepts and three—Extension and Development of Sustainable Agricultural Activities, Fundamentals of Sustainable Agricultural Development, and Supervised Entrepreneurial Experiences in Agriculture—exceeded 50% and received fully green labels. However, since these are elective, selection depends on institutional offerings and student choice, causing variation in experiences with fully green content.
Regarding the seven disciplinary specializations (Horticultural Sciences, Animal Sciences, Bio-systems Engineering, Soil Sciences, Crop Production and Genetics, Plant Protection, and Environmental Sciences), eco-labeling concluded only one fully green course in Environmental Sciences (Subjects of Environment and Sustainable Agriculture), the rest mostly relatively green or non-green. Other specializations are relevant to environmental management but suffer from human behavior in application. All horticultural courses lack sustainability subjects, explaining continued damaging practices like excessive chemical fertilizer and pesticide use. Across the curriculum, out of 184 course credits (general, basic, specialized), there are only 7 fully green credits (5%), 57 relatively green (31%), and 120 non-green (65%). This shows that while the curriculum acknowledges sustainability in title and aims, actual learning continues without application of green higher education principles.
The discussion emphasizes that integrating sustainability into higher education entails more than nominal use of terms; it requires systemic changes in course design, teaching methods, and interdisciplinary integration. The study concludes that the curriculum must be completely revised so environmental awareness and sustainability literacy become normal, not marginal, products of instruction. Systematic revision of general and basic curriculum in all agricultural subjects is necessary to provide students with awareness of sustainability. Furthermore, curriculum revision must be participatory, involving faculty, authorities on environmental problems, policy makers, and agricultural industry representatives, ensuring content reflects real challenges and local needs. Ultimately, results indicate that Green University aims and promoting Sustainable Agriculture in Iran require a conscious, systematic approach in developing a green curriculum. Introducing sustainability in all educational planning, whether defining learning outcomes, designing course materials, or evaluating students’ success, will induce graduates to enter technical fields and provide environmentally responsible citizens capable of leading a transition toward sustainability.