- Email: [email protected]
Assessing awareness of green chemistry as a tool for advancing sustainability
Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Assessing awareness of green chemistry as a tool for advancing sustainability n , Beatriz Giner * Natalia Loste , David Chinarro , Manuel Gomez , Esther Rolda llego, 50830, Zaragoza, Spain Universidad San Jorge, Villanueva de Ga
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 18 March 2019 Received in revised form 28 January 2020 Accepted 1 February 2020 Available online 4 February 2020
The importance of Green Chemistry (GC) in improving sustainability is growing. Nevertheless, GC is quite unknown area outside the chemical field. A good way to promote GC is through education, especially in a non e chemical environment. Additionally, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) provide opportunities for new education experiences. So, the main object of this study to gain knowledge about the role played by GC in sustainability strategies through the perspective of students of the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy”. To better understand this issue, the authors have conducted two surveys to student’s MOOC. In this manuscript, the possibilities of applying GC for improving sustainability out of the chemical field making use of a MOOC have been explored for the first time. Information about the perception of GC as a tool for people interested in sustainability and circular economy has been collected and interesting conclusions have been achieved regarding the use of GC out of the chemistry field. The results of the surveys suggest that GC is the least know environmental tool, but after training, students positively valued the usefulness of GC and considered it as effective for the development of their work. Education (training, awareness and dissemination) and regulation have been proposed for student as the main actions to promote GC as a tool for advancing sustainability. Finally, as conclusion and novelty, the MOOCs could facilitate the transfer of knowledge about GC outside the academic field. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Handling editor: Dr Sandra Caeiro Keywords: Sustainability Green chemistry MOOC Education for sustainable development Circular economy Environmental management system
1. Introduction Green chemistry (GC) is defined by Anastas and Warner in 1998 as “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances” (Anastas and Warner, 1998), guided by the 12 Principles of GC (Anastas and Kirchhoff, 2002). The framework of GC can be summarized as three mains points: design, reduce hazard and cohesive system of principles (Anastas and Eghbali, 2010). The application of Green Chemistry (GC) as a tool to improve sustainability is a field of knowledge studied by different authors (Anastas and Eghbali, 2010; Dunn, 2012; Sikdar, 2003; Eissen et al., 2002; Sheldon, 2018; Kirchhoff, 2005). The implementation of GC technologies decreases water and energy consumption, minimizes the use of hazardous materials, (Kirchhoff, 2005), and aimed at meeting “the triple bottom line”: sustainability in social, economic and environmental performance (Beach et al., 2009; Hjeresen et al.,
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Giner). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120392 0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2002). Progress in sustainability science requires interdisciplinary research, novel schemes and techniques (Kates et al., 2001; Darabpour et al., 2018; Arabi et al., 2018; Zhang, 2019), as GC also distinguish as sustainable chemistry usually in Europe (Eilks and Rauch, 2012; Günter et al., 2017). In our previous research (Loste et al. 2019a, 2019b), it was found that GC could boost sustainable development using synergies between GC and other environmental strategies such as Environmental Management System (EMS), Circular Economy (CE) and Industrial Ecology (IE). Nevertheless, the results of that research indicate that different problems exist for the joint implementation, such as the unawareness of GC, lack of specific regulations or metrics to measure the greenness of a process or products and the need to incorporate transdisciplinary research. In addition, the difficulty of applying GC principles in sustainability beyond the chemical field has been also detected. In relation with learning of GC for the general public there are several attempts of including GC into chemistry curriculum in many academic institutions using different educational materials and methods (Cann and Dickneider, 2004; Hjeresen et al., 2000;
2
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
Levy et al., 2005; Gross, 2012; Hutchison, 2019). However there is a lack of uniform demand for GC from academia and resistance to infuse GC into main general chemistry textbooks (Haack and Hutchison, 2016). There is a significant opportunity to addressing key questions at intersection of society, chemistry and the environment (Haack and Hutchison, 2016). Different researches shows that GC education has potential in changing chemistry concepts, attitudes and motivations for acting pro-environmental value and could contribute to sustainable development (Eilks and Rauch, 2012; Karpudewan et al., 2012; Burmeister et al., 2012). There are some educational experiences linked the topics green chemistry and sustainability (Gross, 2012; Marteel-Parrish, 2014; Günter et al., 2017), and some previous education initiatives relatives with online course about sustainable development (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Diamond and Irwin, 2013; Martinho et al., 2014; Lozano et al., 2015; Bacelar-Nicolau et al., 2009) and specifically in GC and sustainability (Haley et al., 2018; Summerton et al. 2016, 2018). Thinking about new educational materials to bring chemistry to sustainability, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) could be a new model to explore, since MOOCs provide opportunities and challenges for sustainability education (Zhan et al., 2015; Pretorius et al., 2015) and climate change education (Otto et al., 2019) and could be used as an advantage in chemistry teaching (Li, 2017). A MOOC is a large scale, open-access course open and free to everyone (Margaryan et al., 2015). MOOCs aid in offering access to quality education to thousands of participants distributed all over the world through a new way of online learning (Daradoumis et al., 2013) via the Internet (Shapiro et al., 2017) and can be used as lifelong education (Epelboin, 2014). Among the main characteristics of the MOOCs, the creation of a community of students self-organized with common interests stands out (McAuley et al., 2010). The literature review categorized three variants of MOOCs from the perspective of pedagogical design: xMOOC a cognitive behavioral pedagogical model, sMOOC a social constructivist model and cMOOCs a connectivist pedagogical model focuses on network development (Miyazoe and Anderson, 2013; Gil Quintana, 2016; Brouns et al., 2017). There are some other online education resources about GC (Haley et al., 2018; O’Malley et al., 2015), but it seems that, this is GC concepts have not been related to circular economy and sustainability previously in a MOOC. For this reason, the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy” launched by interdisciplinary team of Universidad San Jorge (Spain) explored the learning of GC concepts together with sustainability. It could be described as a xMOOC, with video lectures, supporting materials, computer-marked assignments, a shared discussion space, badges and certificates, in MiriadaX platform (Salguero and Aguaded, 2014). This MOOC is aligned to the ideas proposed by Collins, (2017), who claimed that courses with concepts such as chemistry and ssustainability had to be launched together to build “professorial competence for advancing the relationship between commercial chemistry and health and the environment”. The students of this MOOC, most of whom are not specialists in chemistry, have been surveyed to know their degree of prior knowledge about GC and their perception of the usefulness of GC for sustainability after the training received. It must be said that surveys for the analysis of the use of GC in different areas have been done previously. For example, Watson performed a survey using 24 companies members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) Green Chemistry Roundtable with the aim of analyzing the ways pharmaceutical companies are approaching GC and applying GC principles (Watson, 2012). Another survey was conducted for the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute (ACS GCI) about the industrial implementation of GC (Giraud et al., 2014). Furthermore, a survey of 34 global
pharmaceutical companies was conducted in order to benchmark the adoption of GC by the supply chain (Veleva and W. Cue Jr, 2017). Finally, De Soete, in his study about sustainability in the healthcare sector (De Soete et al., 2017), used a stakeholder survey in order to advance the state-of-the-art of environmental assessments. It is worth mentioning that these previous surveys were especially focused on GC in the manufacturing sector, with the results restricted to the area of study. For that reason and with the aim to understanding the degree of implementation of GC in nonchemical areas, the present study has been performed. After the analysis described, it has been perceived that: (i) the GC needs to be promoted to increase its use as a tool to improve sustainability (ii) a good way to promote is through education, especially in a non-chemical environment (iii) MOOCs can be a good way to put it into practice, but there are no previous experiences of joint GC learning with other sustainability tools. This paper aims to gain knowledge about the role played by GC in sustainability strategies through the perspective of students of the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy”. The next section presents the methodology; section three outlines the results of the surveys about different sustainability tools; the four section presents a discussion about the results with literature review; finally, section five shows the conclusions and suggest strategies to promoted GC. 2. Methodology In the following scheme, we show a summary of the work done, as well as the different phases of the methodology used in the study. (Fig. 1). MOOC Design: this phase focuses on pedagogical design, but also introduces other lines of action related to technical aspects and selection of the work team. A) Pedagogical design: curriculum with the sequential organization of the various educational resources (subject, videos, activities, support resources, establishment of evaluation methodology), animation plan (list of actions to involve the community as Newsletter, moderation of forum, social networks, establishment of medals, karma). B) Technical design: choice of platform and start of the MOOC learning environment. C) Creation: implementation plan (calendar), including actions of quality control. Modular and open content has been realized. Videos with pedagogical content have been created, according to the following scheme: writing the script, selection of images that accompany the script, recording, graphic production, video assembly and platform repository. Perform the self-diagnosis and evaluation system. MOOC Delivery: The MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy” is open to all those interested in expanding their knowledge about sustainability, and it is taught in Spanish. The course takes place over 4 weeks. To begin, the concept of sustainability and sustainable business had been developed. Then, tools for achieving sustainability are analyzed, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Eco-Design (ED), Green Chemistry (GC), Energy Efficiency (EE) and Circular Economy (CE). In the next module, the tools for sustainability had been studied as management indicators, the carbon footprint, the water footprint and synergies of management systems. Finally, the importance of
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
3
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the methodology outline.
communicating sustainability had been also analyzed (Loste et al., 2017). Each module of the course included a knowledge test. The students could reach the recognition certificates awarded by MiriadaX. https://miriadax.net/en/faq?faqid¼8635212. Surveys: For achieving the objective of this work, two surveys have been carried out by the students of the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy”. A systematic method for gathering information from a sample of individuals has been used. The purpose is to describe the behavior of a larger population with properties similar to the individual sample in order to gain insight into what the entire group thinks regarding GC. The survey foundation stems from the four cornerstones of any survey research given by Salant & Dillman: coverage, sampling, response, and measurement (Salant et al., 1994); see also (Groves, 1989). Regarding the quality planning and analysis of surveys, it relies on “quality is fitness for use” coined by Juran and Gryna, under the point of view that the result of the survey must be useful for improving the GC training by MOOCs and control the process in terms of reducing specification errors (Juran, 1993). The survey of previous knowledge about GC was carried out in May 2018, in the first week of the MOOC, and it was made up of two questions. Survey two was launched at the end of the training in GC of the MOOC course. It was carried out in June 2018 and consists of six questions (Table 1). The questionnaire was developed using learning analytics tools of platform MiriadaX. disseminated in the own platform to the students, and the answer were anonymous. Respondents rank quality from high to low or important to unimportant using five levels. A Likert scale was employed in the questionnaires (Allen and Seaman, 2007). Analysis: Data of survey was collected by discrete quantitative like a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with number 5 indicating the maximum agreement with the response, or by dichotomic variables (Yes/no). Mean, was calculated in quantitative variables and frequencies or percentages in all variables. Non parametric test was used to show differences of GC with the rest of the quantitative variables, with Friedman test the global differences was analyzed and with Wilcoxon test the comparisons by pairs. A type 1 error of 0,05 was considered to accept or reject the null hypothesis but a penalization of the signification level was considered in Wilcoxon test and the level fixed in this case was 0,01 (0,05/5). 95% confidence interval of dichotomic variables was also computed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software, license by Universidad San Jorge.
3. Results The population of the study was 921, total number of students enrolled in the MOOC, with a completion rates of 27.5%, above
average found in MOOCs (Jordan, 2014). 565 students participated in survey one and 319 students participate in survey two. The population in this study was balanced sample in relation to gender (48.6% male, 51.4% female in survey ones while 53.4% male and 46.6% female in survey 2). The age distribution was similar in both surveys. Participants were from 26 different countries, most of them are Spanish-speaking countries. The course was taught in Spanish, and thus, the students mainly come from Spain and Latin America. In relation to their occupation, the distribution of workers, students, unemployed, and scholars, was similar in both surveys. Among the participants, 60% indicated that their occupation is related to sustainability, and 40% indicated that their occupation is not related to sustainability (Table 2).
3.1. Survey 1 Question 1. Indicate your knowledge about the following sustainability tools and strategies The rating of this item about the degree of knowledge of these sustainability tools shows that EE is the best known strategy (2.79 points out of 5), followed by EMS (2.77), LCA (2.57), CE (2.37), ED (2.31) and finally GC (1.81). There is a difference of 0.98 points between the most known strategy EE and GC, which is the least known. We found statistically significant differences between all tools (Friedman test P-value <0,001) and when comparing GC with the other tools (Wilcoxon test P-value <0,001). In other words, among the six sustainability tools and strategies consulted, GC is the least known among the participants. Regarding GC, 51.5% of respondents indicated that their knowledge of it was very low, 25.2% indicated that they knew it below average, 16.3% knew it average, 4.6% indicated that they knew it above average, and 2.3% indicated that they knew GC very high. However, EE and EMS are the least unknown tools, as approximately 15% of respondents know them very little, while 51.1% know very little about GC (Fig. 2). In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the degree of knowledge of all of the sustainability tools/strategies increases slightly. The rating of this item about the degree of knowledge of GC is only 0.10 points greater, but the order of knowledge is retained. Regarding the gender and country of origin, there are no high differences in the results of this question. Question 2. Have you used any of the following tools? In the question regarding the frequency of use, 42.8% claimed that they had used EE, 36.7% claimed they had used EMS, 35.0%
4
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
Table 1 Questions of the surveys. Survey one Question Answer 1 Indicate your knowledge about the following sustainability tools and strategies: Energy Efficiency (EE), Environmental Management System (EMS), 1 Very low Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Circular Economy (CE), Ecodesign (ED) and Green Chemistry (GC) 2 Low 3 Regular 4 High 5 Very high 2 Have you used any of the following tools: Energy Efficiency (EE), Environmental Management System (EMS), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Circular 1 Never Economy (CE), Ecodesign (ED) and Green Chemistry (GC)? 2 Rarely 3 Sometimes 4 Very often 5 Always Survey two Question Answer 1 After knowing the tools and strategies for sustainability, answer on their degree of utility. 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 2 Value the usefulness of these tools for the development of your work. 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 3 Do you think that the lack of regulations regarding GC can be a barrier to its implementation? Yes No 4 Do you think that more training in GC would facilitate its implementation in organizations? 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 5 Rate the following proposed actions to promote GC. 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 6 What other actions could be carried out in order to promote GC? Open answer
claimed that they had used LCA, 24.1% claimed that they had used ED, 20.1% claimed that they had used CE, and 7.7% answered that they had used GC (Fig. 3). Thus, once again, GC is the least used tool, as 92.3% of the respondents had never used GC. In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the percentage that has used these tools increases slightly, but the order of use remains the same. If it takes into account the gender of the respondent, it is observed that the percentage of women who had used these tools is slightly lower, but the order of use is maintained, and they only indicate a slightly greater use of GC (0.83%). Regarding the country of origin, there are no remarkable differences in the results of this question. It is worth mentioning, however, that CE is used 4.2% more by women than men. There is no overlap between the 95% confidence interval of GC with the rest of the tools, which suggests that in the population the values are significantly different (Fig. 3).
the least useful strategy, although the difference between the highest and lowest value is only 0.32, which indicates little difference between the six tools analyzed (Fig. 4). We found statistically significant differences between all tools (Friedman test P-value <0,001). When comparing GC with the other tools, we found statistically significant differences with EMS, CE, ACV and EE (Wilcoxon test P-value <0,01), nevertheless there are not statistically significant differences between GC with ED (Wilcoxon test Pvalue ¼ 0,021). In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the average value of the degree of utility increases slightly for all of the tools and that specifically, GC increases by only 0.05 points. If it takes into account the gender of the respondent, it is observed that women give a higher value to GC (4.1) than men (3.9), although in both cases, it is the tool with the lowest value. Regarding the country of origin, there are no large differences in the results of this question.
3.2. Survey two Question 1. After knowing the tools and strategies for sustainability, answer on their degree of utility. Analyzing the results for tools, LCA was valued as the most useful tool (4.3 points out of 5), followed by EE (4.3), CE (4.2), EMS (4.2), ED (4.1) and finally GC (4.0). It is observed that after the training on sustainability tools, the respondents indicated that GC is
Question 2. Value the usefulness of these tools for the development of your work EMS is valued as the most useful tool, with a value of 4.02 out of 5, followed by EE 3.98, LCA 3.97, CE 3.90, ED 3.76 and finally, GC 3.58 (Fig. 5). After the training on sustainability tools, the respondents indicated that GC was the least useful for the development of their work. There is a difference of 0.43 points between the most useful
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392 Table 2 Characteristics of survey’s respondents. Sample survey 1 Sex Male 48.6% Female 51.4% Age <24 20.8% 24-35 37.7% 36-60 38.5% >60 3.0% Country Spain 29.4% Peru 11.9% Colombia 10.3% Ecuador 8.9% Mexico 8.5% Venezuela 8.0% Argentine Republic 5.7% Chile 5.1% Other 10.5% Not answer 1.8% Occupation Employed 41.9% Self-employed 14.4% Students 29.7% Unemployed 12.3% Scholar 1.8% Occupation related to sustainability Yes 60.6% No 39.4%
Sample survey 2 53.4% 46.6% 16.6 33.8 46.8 2.9 37.9% 10.3% 9.4% 7.5% 7.2% 6.0% 3.1% 3.1% 12.9% 2.5% 45.9% 15.0% 25.2% 13.1% 1.0% 60.2% 39.8%
tool EMS and GC, which is considered the least useful for the development of their work. We found statistically significant
5
differences between all tools (Friedman test P-value <0,001). When comparing GC with the other tools, we found statistically significant differences with EMS, CE, ACV and EE (Wilcoxon test P-value <0,01), nevertheless there are not statistically significant differences between GC with ED (Wilcoxon test P-value ¼ 0,036). In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the average value of the degree of utility for one’s work increases slightly, as the GC response goes from 3.58 to 3.65. If the respondent’s gender is taken into account, men give a higher value to GC (3.64) than women (3.52), although in both cases, GC is the tool with a lower value. Regarding the country of origin, there are no remarkable differences in the results of this question. Question 3. Do you think that the lack of regulations regarding GC can be a barrier to its implementation? (Yes, No). A total of 73.5% of the respondents answered affirmatively that the lack of regulations regarding GC could be a barrier to its implementation, while 26.5% responded negatively to this issue. (95% confidence interval: 68,6% - 78,4%). This assessment does not change if the occupation, gender and country of residence of the respondents are considered. Question 4. Do you think that more training in GC would facilitate its implementation in organizations? (Yes, No). A total of 92.2% of respondents answered affirmatively that an increase in GC training could facilitate its implementation in organizations, while only 7.8% responded negatively to this question. (95% confidence interval: 89,2% - 95,2%). This result does not
Total number of respondent: 565 Fig. 2. Degree of knowledge about different sustainability tools and strategies.
6
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
Fig. 3. Information given by respondents about the previous use of sustainability/environmental tools.
Fig. 4. Degree of utility of tools for sustainability (percentage).
change if the occupation, gender and country of residence of the respondents are considered.
the gender and country of residence of the respondents are not significant.
Question 5. Rate the following proposed actions to promote GC.
Question 6. What other actions could be carried out in order to promote GC? (Open answer).
The proposed actions received the following average assessments: GC ecolabels on products, 4.22; improve specific training in GC, 4.04; improve the relationship between research in GC and administrations in order to have a regulatory framework, 3.98; and evaluation of the GC processes, 3.97. Thus, all received high and similar ratings. The proposed actions received the following average assessment for the respondents whose occupations are related to the environment: GC ecolabels on products, 4.16; improve the relationship between research in GC and administrations in order to have a regulatory framework, 4.10; evaluation of the GC processes, 4.02; and improve specific training in GC, 3.98. Differences due to
A total of 155 responses were received to this open question, which were analyzed and grouped into 4 main categories (Fig. 6). The most numerous proposals are related to education 47.3%, followed by regulation 31.1%, research 16 9% and others 4.7%. Education includes improvement of training 25.7%, awareness 13.5% and dissemination 8.1%. In relation to regulation, the proposals are related to the adoption of norms 16.2% as well as the establishment of incentives 6.8%, rates 3.4%, ecolabels 2.7% and sanctions 2.0%. In research, actions related to monitoring 7.4%, R&D 6.8% and design 2.7% have been proposed. Other actions suggested are related to cross-actions 2.7% and energy 2.0%.
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
7
Fig. 5. Degree of utility of the tool for the sustainability of your job (percentage).
Fig. 6. Proposed actions to promote GC.
4. Discussion The results of survey one show us that GC is the most unknown tool in relation to the other sustainability tools that are studied in the MOOC. Although GC is recognized as a successful strategy for sustainability in the industry (Manley et al., 2008), it seems that it is not known outside of this industrial field. GC usually does not appear to be linked to sustainability but instead is linked to chemistry. Regarding the use of this tool, 92% answered that they had not used it. Although there are many daily products that have been developed following the principles of the GC (Dhage, 2013), there is still a great lack of knowledge about GC. These outcomes
suggest that GC is an unknown tool for students interested in sustainability. No major differences were found regarding the gender and country of residence of the respondents. In general, there is an increase in knowledge in GC for those respondents whose occupation is related to the environment. It seems opportune to increase the training in GC outside the scope of the industry to facilitate its application to the broad field of sustainability. The results of the survey conducted after this training show that the students positively value the usefulness of GC and consider it useful for the development of their work. However, it is the strategy that obtains the lowest rating regarding its usefulness with respect to the other tools (that were also studied and analyzed in the MOOC), but the differences between the six tools were only 0.3 out of 5 points. This may be related to the emotional barriers such as fear of chemistry or chemaphobia (Eddy, 2000). Furthermore, after the training on sustainability tools, the respondents indicated GC as the least useful for the development of their work, while EMS has the best rating. The use of EMS as a tool to improve sustainability has been used in all types of organizations lez et al., 2008; Zutshi and countries for more than 25 years (Gonza and Sohal, 2004; Lam et al., 2011), which allows it to be better known in more different areas. However, GC is especially circumscribed to the field of the chemical industry and is thus restricted in a GC community, which perhaps makes it unknown outside of that context (Epicoco et al., 2014). The main actions proposed for students to promote GC, education, regulation and research are in the line of the conclusion of other studies. The pharmaceutical industry has also identified the improvement of training in green chemistry as a key element for its development in this sector (Constable et al., 2007). The benchmarking study about GC adoption by “big pharma” concluded that environmental regulation helps to advance GC practice into supply chain (Veleva and W. Cue Jr, 2017) while the survey report about implementing GC in chemical manufacturing pointed out that educating in GC to external chemical manufacturer stakeholders was the best practice to boost GC (Giraud et al., 2014). One of the novel aspects of this research is its approach out of chemical environment and formal education.
8
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
In previous studies it has been pointed out that this kind of MOOC could be a good platform to sustainability education and chemistry teaching (Zhan et al., 2015; Li and Zhou, 2018), and online could be a good way to incorporating GC into the curriculum (Haley et al., 2018), but nevertheless this experience suggests the need to take GC training outside of the field of chemistry, to deal more closely with other sustainability tools. In addition, this MOOC facilitates the transfer of knowledge about GC outside the academic field, since this course does not establish prerequisites for its access, which represents a novelty in relation to other previous studies. Finally, it must be pointed out that this research has several limitations. Firstly, due to the language of MOOC, the sample is not a global but a survey mostly Spanish and Latin American countries, so it could be interesting make a new study with a more global sample that including English speaking countries. Secondly, there are limitations related to the use of a survey to collect the data such as bias of respondents, selection of questions included in the questionnaire, or incorrect answers due to lack of information or education.
5. Conclusions It is firstly noted that the investigation has shown that GC is the most unknown tool in relation to the other sustainability tools that are studied in the MOOC. However, it is important to highlight that after this training, students positively value the usefulness of GC and consider it useful for the development of their work. GC is recognized in the industrial and chemical field as one of the most efficient sustainable tools, but beyond the field of chemistry is the most unknown tool. The authors have detected the need to increase the training on GC outside the chemical field, in which it could be highly profitable. Particularly, a scant level of knowledge about GC has been detected in the MOOC participants. Furthermore, the findings of the evaluation suggest that almost all respondent have increased their interest about GC as a tool for advising sustainability. It seems opportune to increase the effort in disseminating knowledge about GC outside the academic, chemical and industrial scope. It is important to improve its interconnection with other areas of environmental knowledge, which drives the advancement of sustainability. For this purpose, new strategies can be used, such as the one shown in this manuscript through MOOCs, that bring specific knowledge to different and large audiences. For that reason, it is necessary to establish multidisciplinary work teams with a broad and open vision that allows covering the knowledge needs necessary to advance in sustainability. It would also be opportune to involve public administrations for environmental regulation in the legal framework, which encourages the implementation and more widespread use of GC. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Natalia Loste: Writing - original draft, Investigation, Writing review & editing, Data curation. David Chinarro: Software, Methn: odology. Manuel Gomez: Software, Methodology. Esther Rolda Supervision. Beatriz Giner: Conceptualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Acknowledgments Financial support from the Spanish MINECO (projects CTQ 201344867-P), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Government of Aragon, Consolidated Group E105 is gratefully acknowledged. GreenLife acknowledges financial support from n Energe tica and Brial (ENAEEE53 SL: Pinares de Venecia Divisio TICA). Both business groups are committed to sustainable development through environmental respect. References Allen, I.E., Seaman, C.A., 2007. Likert scales and data analyses. Qual. Prog. 40 (7), 64e65. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2012.13013. Anastas, P., Eghbali, N., 2010. Green chemistry: principles and practice. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39 (1), 301e312. https://doi.org/10.1039/B918763B. Anastas, P.T., Kirchhoff, M.M., 2002. Origins, current status, and future challenges of green chemistry. Acc. Chem. Res. 35 (9), 686e694. https://doi.org/10.1021/ ar010065m. Anastas, P.T., Warner, J.C., 1998. Principles of green chemistry. Green Chem.: Theor. Pract. 29e56. Arabi, S., Golabchi, M., Darabpour, M., 2018. Sustainable development in cities: a qualitative approach to evaluate rating systems. Civil Engineering Journal 4 (12), 2990e3004. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-03091215. Azeiteiro, U.M., Bacelar-Nicolau, P., Caetano, F.J., Caeiro, S., 2015. Education for sustainable development through e-learning in higher education: experiences from Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 308e319. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2014.11.056. Bacelar-Nicolau, P., Caeiro, S., Martinho, A., Azeiteiro, U., Amador, F., 2009. Elearning for the environment: the Universidade Aberta (Portuguese Open Distance University) experience in the environmental sciences post-graduate courses. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 10 (4), 354e367. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14676370910990701. Beach, E.S., Cui, Z., Anastas, P.T., 2009. Green Chemistry: a design framework for sustainability. Energy Environ. Sci. 2 (10), 1038e1049. https://doi.org/10.1039/ b904997p. Brouns, F., Teixeira, A., Morgado, L., Fano, S., Fueyo, A., Jansen, D., 2017. Designing massive open online learning processes: the sMOOC pedagogical framework. In: Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-662-52925-6_16. Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., Eilks, I., 2012. Education for sustainable development (ESD) and chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13 (2), 59e68. https:// doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90060a. Cann, M.C., Dickneider, T.A., 2004. Infusing the chemistry curriculum with green chemistry using real-world examples, web modules, and atom economy in organic chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ. 81 (7), 977. https://doi.org/10.1021/ ed081p977. Collins, T.J., 2017. Review of the twenty-three year evolution of the first university course in green chemistry: teaching future leaders how to create sustainable societies. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 93e110. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2015.06.136. Constable, D.J., Dunn, P.J., Hayler, J.D., Humphrey, G.R., Leazer Jr, J.L., Linderman, R.J., Lorenz, K., Manley, J., Pearlman, B.A., Wells, A., 2007. Key green chemistry research areasda perspective from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Green Chem. 9 (5), 411e420. https://doi.org/10.1039/b703488c. Darabpour, M.R., Darabpour, M., Sardroud, J.M., Smallwood, J., Tabarsa, G., 2018. Practical approaches toward sustainable development in Iranian green construction. Civil Engineering Journal 4 (10), 2450e2465. https://doi.org/ 10.28991/cej-03091172. , S., 2013. A review on massive e-learning Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., Caballe (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. Paper presented at P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and Internet computing (3PGCIC), 2013 eighth international conference on. https://doi.org/10.1109/3pgcic.2013.37. nez-Gonza lez, C., Dahlin, P., Dewulf, J., 2017. Challenges and De Soete, W., Jime recommendations for environmental sustainability assessments of pharmaceutical products in the healthcare sector. Green Chem. 19 (15), 3493e3509. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7gc00833c. Dhage, S.D., 2013. Applications OF green chemistry principles IN every day life. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Chem. 3 (3), 518e520. Diamond, S., Irwin, B., 2013. Using e-learning for student sustainability literacy: framework and review. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 14 (4), 338e348. https:// doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-09-2011-0060. Dunn, P.J., 2012. The importance of green chemistry in process research and development. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41 (4), 1452e1461. https://doi.org/10.1039/ C1CS15041C. Eddy, R.M., 2000. Chemophobia in the college classroom: extent, sources, and student characteristics. J. Chem. Educ. 77 (4), 514. https://doi.org/10.1021/ ed077p514. Eilks, I., Rauch, F., 2012. Sustainable development and green chemistry in chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13 (2), 57e58. https://doi.org/10.1039/ C2RP90003C.
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392 Epelboin, Y., 2014. Mooc 2014: should universities enter the competition? EUNIS Journal of Higher Education (2014/1). http://hdl.handle.net/11366/479. Epicoco, M., Oltra, V., Saint Jean, M., 2014. Knowledge dynamics and sources of ecoinnovation: mapping the Green Chemistry community. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81, 388e402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.006. Eissen, M., Metzger, J.O., Schmidt, E., Schneidewind, U., 2002. 10 years after Riodconcepts on the contribution of chemistry to a sustainable development. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41 (3), 414e436. https://doi.org/10.1002/15213773(20020201)41:3<414::aid-anie414>3.0.co;2-n. Gil Quintana, J., 2016. Las redes sociales en el modelo sMOOC. Giraud, R.J., Williams, P.A., Sehgal, A., Ponnusamy, E., Phillips, A.K., Manley, J.B., 2014. Implementing Green Chemistry in Chemical Manufacturing: A Survey Report. ACS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc500427d. lez, P., Sarkis, J., Adenso-Díaz, B., 2008. Environmental management system Gonza certification and its influence on corporate practices: evidence from the automotive industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 28 (11), 1021e1041. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/01443570810910179. Gross, E.M., 2012. Green chemistry and sustainability: an undergraduate course for science and nonscience majors. J. Chem. Educ. 90 (4), 429e431. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/ed200756z. Groves, R.M., 1989. Survey Costs and Survey Errors. New York. Günter, T., Akkuzu, N., Alpat, S¸., 2017. Understanding ‘green chemistry’and ‘sustainability’: an example of problem-based learning (PBL). Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 35 (4), 500e520. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1353964. Haack, J.A., Hutchison, J.E., 2016. Green Chemistry Education: 25 Years of Progress and 25 Years Ahead. ACS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acssuschemeng.6b02069. Haley, R.A., Ringo, J.M., Hopgood, H., Denlinger, K.L., Das, A., Waddell, D.C., 2018. Graduate student designed and delivered: an upper-level online course for undergraduates in green chemistry and sustainability. J. Chem. Educ. 95 (4), 560e569. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00730. Hjeresen, D.L., Boese, J.M., Schutt, D.L., 2000. Green chemistry and education. J. Chem. Educ. 77 (12), 1543. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p1543. Hjeresen, D.L., Kirchhoff, M.M., Lankey, R.L., 2002. Green chemistry: environment, economics, and competitiveness. Corp. Environ. Strat. 9 (3), 259e266. https:// doi.org/10.1016/s1066-7938(02)00068-4. Hutchison, J.E., 2019. Systems thinking and green chemistry: powerful levers for curricular change and adoption. J. Chem. Educ. 96 (12), 2777e2783. https:// doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00334. Jordan, K., 2014. Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 15 (1) https://doi.org/10.19173/ irrodl.v15i1.1651. Juran, J.M., 1993. Quality Planning and Analysis; from Product Development through Use. Karpudewan, M., Ismail, Z., Roth, W.-M., 2012. Ensuring sustainability of tomorrow through green chemistry integrated with sustainable development concepts (SDCs). Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13 (2), 120e127. https://doi.org/10.1039/ c1rp90066h. Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292 (5517), 641e642. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386. Kirchhoff, M.M., 2005. Promoting sustainability through green chemistry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44 (3), 237e243. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2005.01.003. Levy, I.J., Haack, J.A., Hutchison, J.E., Kirchhoff, M.M., 2005. Going green: lecture assignments and lab experiences for the college curriculum: ACS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p974. Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Chau, C., Poon, C., Chun, K., 2011. Environmental management system vs green specifications: how do they complement each other in the construction industry? J. Environ. Manag. 92 (3), 788e795. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.030. Li, Z., 2017. The reform and innovation of chemistry classroom teaching mode in the era of big data. Paper presented at 2017 9th international conference on measuring technology and mechatronics automation (ICMTMA). https://doi. org/10.1109/icmtma.2017.0107. Li, C., Zhou, H., 2018. Enhancing the efficiency of massive online learning by integrating intelligent analysis into MOOCs with an application to education of sustainability. Sustainability 10 (2), 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020468. Loste, N., Callao, C., Giner, B., Chinarro, D., 2017. Use of MOOCs for spreading knowhow on circular economy and environmental sustainability. EDULEARN17 Proceedings: IATED 9900e9906. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.0873. Loste, N., Rold an, E., Giner, B., 2019a. Is Green Chemistry a feasible tool for the implementation of a circular economy? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 1e13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07177-5.
9
n, E., Lomba, L., Giner, B., 2019b. Green chemistry and environmental Loste, N., Rolda management systems: relationships, synergies, advantages and barriers of joint implementation at universities. Environ. Manag. 64 (6), 783e793. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01218-y. Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Seatter, C.S., 2015. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205e215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.031. Manley, J.B., Anastas, P.T., Cue Jr., B.W., 2008. Frontiers in green chemistry: meeting the grand challenges for sustainability in R&D and manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (6), 743e750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.025. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., Littlejohn, A., 2015. Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Comput. Educ. 80, 77e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2014.08.005. Marteel-Parrish, A.E., 2014. Teaching green and sustainable chemistry: a revised one-semester course based on inspirations and challenges. J. Chem. Educ. 91 (7), 1084e1086. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400393b. Martinho, A.P., Caeiro, S., Caetano, F.J., Azeiteiro, U., Nicolau, P.B., 2014. Training and employability, competences from an e-learning undergraduate programme in environmental sciences. E-learning and education for sustainability 47e58. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02460-9/13. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., Cormier, D., 2010. The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. Miyazoe, T., Anderson, T., 2013. Interaction equivalency in an OER, MOOCS and informal learning era. https://doi.org/10.5334/2013-09. Otto, D., Caeiro, S., Nicolau, P., Disterheft, A., Teixeira, A., Becker, S., Bollmann, A., Sander, K., 2019. Can MOOCs empower people to critically think about climate change? A learning outcome based comparison of two MOOCs. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 12e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.190. O’Malley, P.J., Agger, J.R., Anderson, M.W., 2015. Teaching a chemistry MOOC with a virtual laboratory: lessons learned from an introductory physical chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 92 (10), 1661e1666. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.jchemed.5b00118. €thling, M., du Plessis, A., Pretorius, R., Nicolau, M., Immelman, J., de Jager, A., No 2015. Virtual learning environments for transformation to sustainability: a case study from the “south”. In: Integrating Sustainability Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09474-8_ 24. Salant, P., Dillman, I., Don, A., 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. Salguero, R.M., Aguaded, I., 2014. Los MOOC en la plataforma educativa MiriadaX. Profr. Rev. Curríc. Form. Profr. 18 (1), 137e153. https://doi.org/10.30827/ profesorado.v23i3.9399. Shapiro, H.B., Lee, C.H., Roth, N.E.W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., Canelas, D.A., 2017. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: an examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput. Educ. 110, 35e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003. Sheldon, R.A., 2018. Metrics of green chemistry and sustainability: past, present, and future. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6 (1), 32e48. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acssuschemeng.7b03505. Sikdar, S.K., 2003. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE J. 49 (8), 1928e1932. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490802. Summerton, L., Taylor, R.J., Clark, J.H., 2016. Promoting the uptake of green and sustainable methodologies in pharmaceutical synthesis: CHEM21 education and training initiatives. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 4, 67e76. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2016.09.003. Summerton, L., Hurst, G.A., Clark, J.H., 2018. Facilitating active learning within green chemistry. Current opinion in green and sustainable chemistry. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.04.002. Veleva, V., Cue Jr., B.W., 2017. Benchmarking green chemistry adoption by “big pharma” and generics manufacturers. Benchmark Int. J. 24 (5), 1414e1436. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-01-2016-0003. Watson, W.J., 2012. How do the fine chemical, pharmaceutical, and related industries approach green chemistry and sustainability? Green Chem. 14 (2), 251e259. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1gc15904f. Zhan, Z., Fong, P., Mei, H., Chang, X., Liang, T., Ma, Z., 2015. Sustainability education in massive open online courses: a content analysis approach. Sustainability 7 (3), 2274e2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032274. Zhang, L., 2019. Big data, knowledge mapping for sustainable development: a water quality index case study. Emerging Science Journal 3 (4), 249e254. https:// doi.org/10.28991/esj-2019-01187. Zutshi, A., Sohal, A., 2004. Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organisations: part 1: reasons, benefits and impediments. Technovation 24 (4), 335e357. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(02)00053-6.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Assessing awareness of green chemistry as a tool for advancing sustainability n , Beatriz Giner * Natalia Loste , David Chinarro , Manuel Gomez , Esther Rolda llego, 50830, Zaragoza, Spain Universidad San Jorge, Villanueva de Ga
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 18 March 2019 Received in revised form 28 January 2020 Accepted 1 February 2020 Available online 4 February 2020
The importance of Green Chemistry (GC) in improving sustainability is growing. Nevertheless, GC is quite unknown area outside the chemical field. A good way to promote GC is through education, especially in a non e chemical environment. Additionally, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) provide opportunities for new education experiences. So, the main object of this study to gain knowledge about the role played by GC in sustainability strategies through the perspective of students of the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy”. To better understand this issue, the authors have conducted two surveys to student’s MOOC. In this manuscript, the possibilities of applying GC for improving sustainability out of the chemical field making use of a MOOC have been explored for the first time. Information about the perception of GC as a tool for people interested in sustainability and circular economy has been collected and interesting conclusions have been achieved regarding the use of GC out of the chemistry field. The results of the surveys suggest that GC is the least know environmental tool, but after training, students positively valued the usefulness of GC and considered it as effective for the development of their work. Education (training, awareness and dissemination) and regulation have been proposed for student as the main actions to promote GC as a tool for advancing sustainability. Finally, as conclusion and novelty, the MOOCs could facilitate the transfer of knowledge about GC outside the academic field. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Handling editor: Dr Sandra Caeiro Keywords: Sustainability Green chemistry MOOC Education for sustainable development Circular economy Environmental management system
1. Introduction Green chemistry (GC) is defined by Anastas and Warner in 1998 as “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances” (Anastas and Warner, 1998), guided by the 12 Principles of GC (Anastas and Kirchhoff, 2002). The framework of GC can be summarized as three mains points: design, reduce hazard and cohesive system of principles (Anastas and Eghbali, 2010). The application of Green Chemistry (GC) as a tool to improve sustainability is a field of knowledge studied by different authors (Anastas and Eghbali, 2010; Dunn, 2012; Sikdar, 2003; Eissen et al., 2002; Sheldon, 2018; Kirchhoff, 2005). The implementation of GC technologies decreases water and energy consumption, minimizes the use of hazardous materials, (Kirchhoff, 2005), and aimed at meeting “the triple bottom line”: sustainability in social, economic and environmental performance (Beach et al., 2009; Hjeresen et al.,
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Giner). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120392 0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2002). Progress in sustainability science requires interdisciplinary research, novel schemes and techniques (Kates et al., 2001; Darabpour et al., 2018; Arabi et al., 2018; Zhang, 2019), as GC also distinguish as sustainable chemistry usually in Europe (Eilks and Rauch, 2012; Günter et al., 2017). In our previous research (Loste et al. 2019a, 2019b), it was found that GC could boost sustainable development using synergies between GC and other environmental strategies such as Environmental Management System (EMS), Circular Economy (CE) and Industrial Ecology (IE). Nevertheless, the results of that research indicate that different problems exist for the joint implementation, such as the unawareness of GC, lack of specific regulations or metrics to measure the greenness of a process or products and the need to incorporate transdisciplinary research. In addition, the difficulty of applying GC principles in sustainability beyond the chemical field has been also detected. In relation with learning of GC for the general public there are several attempts of including GC into chemistry curriculum in many academic institutions using different educational materials and methods (Cann and Dickneider, 2004; Hjeresen et al., 2000;
2
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
Levy et al., 2005; Gross, 2012; Hutchison, 2019). However there is a lack of uniform demand for GC from academia and resistance to infuse GC into main general chemistry textbooks (Haack and Hutchison, 2016). There is a significant opportunity to addressing key questions at intersection of society, chemistry and the environment (Haack and Hutchison, 2016). Different researches shows that GC education has potential in changing chemistry concepts, attitudes and motivations for acting pro-environmental value and could contribute to sustainable development (Eilks and Rauch, 2012; Karpudewan et al., 2012; Burmeister et al., 2012). There are some educational experiences linked the topics green chemistry and sustainability (Gross, 2012; Marteel-Parrish, 2014; Günter et al., 2017), and some previous education initiatives relatives with online course about sustainable development (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Diamond and Irwin, 2013; Martinho et al., 2014; Lozano et al., 2015; Bacelar-Nicolau et al., 2009) and specifically in GC and sustainability (Haley et al., 2018; Summerton et al. 2016, 2018). Thinking about new educational materials to bring chemistry to sustainability, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) could be a new model to explore, since MOOCs provide opportunities and challenges for sustainability education (Zhan et al., 2015; Pretorius et al., 2015) and climate change education (Otto et al., 2019) and could be used as an advantage in chemistry teaching (Li, 2017). A MOOC is a large scale, open-access course open and free to everyone (Margaryan et al., 2015). MOOCs aid in offering access to quality education to thousands of participants distributed all over the world through a new way of online learning (Daradoumis et al., 2013) via the Internet (Shapiro et al., 2017) and can be used as lifelong education (Epelboin, 2014). Among the main characteristics of the MOOCs, the creation of a community of students self-organized with common interests stands out (McAuley et al., 2010). The literature review categorized three variants of MOOCs from the perspective of pedagogical design: xMOOC a cognitive behavioral pedagogical model, sMOOC a social constructivist model and cMOOCs a connectivist pedagogical model focuses on network development (Miyazoe and Anderson, 2013; Gil Quintana, 2016; Brouns et al., 2017). There are some other online education resources about GC (Haley et al., 2018; O’Malley et al., 2015), but it seems that, this is GC concepts have not been related to circular economy and sustainability previously in a MOOC. For this reason, the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy” launched by interdisciplinary team of Universidad San Jorge (Spain) explored the learning of GC concepts together with sustainability. It could be described as a xMOOC, with video lectures, supporting materials, computer-marked assignments, a shared discussion space, badges and certificates, in MiriadaX platform (Salguero and Aguaded, 2014). This MOOC is aligned to the ideas proposed by Collins, (2017), who claimed that courses with concepts such as chemistry and ssustainability had to be launched together to build “professorial competence for advancing the relationship between commercial chemistry and health and the environment”. The students of this MOOC, most of whom are not specialists in chemistry, have been surveyed to know their degree of prior knowledge about GC and their perception of the usefulness of GC for sustainability after the training received. It must be said that surveys for the analysis of the use of GC in different areas have been done previously. For example, Watson performed a survey using 24 companies members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) Green Chemistry Roundtable with the aim of analyzing the ways pharmaceutical companies are approaching GC and applying GC principles (Watson, 2012). Another survey was conducted for the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute (ACS GCI) about the industrial implementation of GC (Giraud et al., 2014). Furthermore, a survey of 34 global
pharmaceutical companies was conducted in order to benchmark the adoption of GC by the supply chain (Veleva and W. Cue Jr, 2017). Finally, De Soete, in his study about sustainability in the healthcare sector (De Soete et al., 2017), used a stakeholder survey in order to advance the state-of-the-art of environmental assessments. It is worth mentioning that these previous surveys were especially focused on GC in the manufacturing sector, with the results restricted to the area of study. For that reason and with the aim to understanding the degree of implementation of GC in nonchemical areas, the present study has been performed. After the analysis described, it has been perceived that: (i) the GC needs to be promoted to increase its use as a tool to improve sustainability (ii) a good way to promote is through education, especially in a non-chemical environment (iii) MOOCs can be a good way to put it into practice, but there are no previous experiences of joint GC learning with other sustainability tools. This paper aims to gain knowledge about the role played by GC in sustainability strategies through the perspective of students of the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy”. The next section presents the methodology; section three outlines the results of the surveys about different sustainability tools; the four section presents a discussion about the results with literature review; finally, section five shows the conclusions and suggest strategies to promoted GC. 2. Methodology In the following scheme, we show a summary of the work done, as well as the different phases of the methodology used in the study. (Fig. 1). MOOC Design: this phase focuses on pedagogical design, but also introduces other lines of action related to technical aspects and selection of the work team. A) Pedagogical design: curriculum with the sequential organization of the various educational resources (subject, videos, activities, support resources, establishment of evaluation methodology), animation plan (list of actions to involve the community as Newsletter, moderation of forum, social networks, establishment of medals, karma). B) Technical design: choice of platform and start of the MOOC learning environment. C) Creation: implementation plan (calendar), including actions of quality control. Modular and open content has been realized. Videos with pedagogical content have been created, according to the following scheme: writing the script, selection of images that accompany the script, recording, graphic production, video assembly and platform repository. Perform the self-diagnosis and evaluation system. MOOC Delivery: The MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy” is open to all those interested in expanding their knowledge about sustainability, and it is taught in Spanish. The course takes place over 4 weeks. To begin, the concept of sustainability and sustainable business had been developed. Then, tools for achieving sustainability are analyzed, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Eco-Design (ED), Green Chemistry (GC), Energy Efficiency (EE) and Circular Economy (CE). In the next module, the tools for sustainability had been studied as management indicators, the carbon footprint, the water footprint and synergies of management systems. Finally, the importance of
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
3
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the methodology outline.
communicating sustainability had been also analyzed (Loste et al., 2017). Each module of the course included a knowledge test. The students could reach the recognition certificates awarded by MiriadaX. https://miriadax.net/en/faq?faqid¼8635212. Surveys: For achieving the objective of this work, two surveys have been carried out by the students of the MOOC “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy”. A systematic method for gathering information from a sample of individuals has been used. The purpose is to describe the behavior of a larger population with properties similar to the individual sample in order to gain insight into what the entire group thinks regarding GC. The survey foundation stems from the four cornerstones of any survey research given by Salant & Dillman: coverage, sampling, response, and measurement (Salant et al., 1994); see also (Groves, 1989). Regarding the quality planning and analysis of surveys, it relies on “quality is fitness for use” coined by Juran and Gryna, under the point of view that the result of the survey must be useful for improving the GC training by MOOCs and control the process in terms of reducing specification errors (Juran, 1993). The survey of previous knowledge about GC was carried out in May 2018, in the first week of the MOOC, and it was made up of two questions. Survey two was launched at the end of the training in GC of the MOOC course. It was carried out in June 2018 and consists of six questions (Table 1). The questionnaire was developed using learning analytics tools of platform MiriadaX. disseminated in the own platform to the students, and the answer were anonymous. Respondents rank quality from high to low or important to unimportant using five levels. A Likert scale was employed in the questionnaires (Allen and Seaman, 2007). Analysis: Data of survey was collected by discrete quantitative like a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with number 5 indicating the maximum agreement with the response, or by dichotomic variables (Yes/no). Mean, was calculated in quantitative variables and frequencies or percentages in all variables. Non parametric test was used to show differences of GC with the rest of the quantitative variables, with Friedman test the global differences was analyzed and with Wilcoxon test the comparisons by pairs. A type 1 error of 0,05 was considered to accept or reject the null hypothesis but a penalization of the signification level was considered in Wilcoxon test and the level fixed in this case was 0,01 (0,05/5). 95% confidence interval of dichotomic variables was also computed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software, license by Universidad San Jorge.
3. Results The population of the study was 921, total number of students enrolled in the MOOC, with a completion rates of 27.5%, above
average found in MOOCs (Jordan, 2014). 565 students participated in survey one and 319 students participate in survey two. The population in this study was balanced sample in relation to gender (48.6% male, 51.4% female in survey ones while 53.4% male and 46.6% female in survey 2). The age distribution was similar in both surveys. Participants were from 26 different countries, most of them are Spanish-speaking countries. The course was taught in Spanish, and thus, the students mainly come from Spain and Latin America. In relation to their occupation, the distribution of workers, students, unemployed, and scholars, was similar in both surveys. Among the participants, 60% indicated that their occupation is related to sustainability, and 40% indicated that their occupation is not related to sustainability (Table 2).
3.1. Survey 1 Question 1. Indicate your knowledge about the following sustainability tools and strategies The rating of this item about the degree of knowledge of these sustainability tools shows that EE is the best known strategy (2.79 points out of 5), followed by EMS (2.77), LCA (2.57), CE (2.37), ED (2.31) and finally GC (1.81). There is a difference of 0.98 points between the most known strategy EE and GC, which is the least known. We found statistically significant differences between all tools (Friedman test P-value <0,001) and when comparing GC with the other tools (Wilcoxon test P-value <0,001). In other words, among the six sustainability tools and strategies consulted, GC is the least known among the participants. Regarding GC, 51.5% of respondents indicated that their knowledge of it was very low, 25.2% indicated that they knew it below average, 16.3% knew it average, 4.6% indicated that they knew it above average, and 2.3% indicated that they knew GC very high. However, EE and EMS are the least unknown tools, as approximately 15% of respondents know them very little, while 51.1% know very little about GC (Fig. 2). In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the degree of knowledge of all of the sustainability tools/strategies increases slightly. The rating of this item about the degree of knowledge of GC is only 0.10 points greater, but the order of knowledge is retained. Regarding the gender and country of origin, there are no high differences in the results of this question. Question 2. Have you used any of the following tools? In the question regarding the frequency of use, 42.8% claimed that they had used EE, 36.7% claimed they had used EMS, 35.0%
4
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
Table 1 Questions of the surveys. Survey one Question Answer 1 Indicate your knowledge about the following sustainability tools and strategies: Energy Efficiency (EE), Environmental Management System (EMS), 1 Very low Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Circular Economy (CE), Ecodesign (ED) and Green Chemistry (GC) 2 Low 3 Regular 4 High 5 Very high 2 Have you used any of the following tools: Energy Efficiency (EE), Environmental Management System (EMS), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Circular 1 Never Economy (CE), Ecodesign (ED) and Green Chemistry (GC)? 2 Rarely 3 Sometimes 4 Very often 5 Always Survey two Question Answer 1 After knowing the tools and strategies for sustainability, answer on their degree of utility. 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 2 Value the usefulness of these tools for the development of your work. 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 3 Do you think that the lack of regulations regarding GC can be a barrier to its implementation? Yes No 4 Do you think that more training in GC would facilitate its implementation in organizations? 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 5 Rate the following proposed actions to promote GC. 1 Unimportant 2 Slightly important 3 Neutral 4 Important 5 Very important 6 What other actions could be carried out in order to promote GC? Open answer
claimed that they had used LCA, 24.1% claimed that they had used ED, 20.1% claimed that they had used CE, and 7.7% answered that they had used GC (Fig. 3). Thus, once again, GC is the least used tool, as 92.3% of the respondents had never used GC. In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the percentage that has used these tools increases slightly, but the order of use remains the same. If it takes into account the gender of the respondent, it is observed that the percentage of women who had used these tools is slightly lower, but the order of use is maintained, and they only indicate a slightly greater use of GC (0.83%). Regarding the country of origin, there are no remarkable differences in the results of this question. It is worth mentioning, however, that CE is used 4.2% more by women than men. There is no overlap between the 95% confidence interval of GC with the rest of the tools, which suggests that in the population the values are significantly different (Fig. 3).
the least useful strategy, although the difference between the highest and lowest value is only 0.32, which indicates little difference between the six tools analyzed (Fig. 4). We found statistically significant differences between all tools (Friedman test P-value <0,001). When comparing GC with the other tools, we found statistically significant differences with EMS, CE, ACV and EE (Wilcoxon test P-value <0,01), nevertheless there are not statistically significant differences between GC with ED (Wilcoxon test Pvalue ¼ 0,021). In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the average value of the degree of utility increases slightly for all of the tools and that specifically, GC increases by only 0.05 points. If it takes into account the gender of the respondent, it is observed that women give a higher value to GC (4.1) than men (3.9), although in both cases, it is the tool with the lowest value. Regarding the country of origin, there are no large differences in the results of this question.
3.2. Survey two Question 1. After knowing the tools and strategies for sustainability, answer on their degree of utility. Analyzing the results for tools, LCA was valued as the most useful tool (4.3 points out of 5), followed by EE (4.3), CE (4.2), EMS (4.2), ED (4.1) and finally GC (4.0). It is observed that after the training on sustainability tools, the respondents indicated that GC is
Question 2. Value the usefulness of these tools for the development of your work EMS is valued as the most useful tool, with a value of 4.02 out of 5, followed by EE 3.98, LCA 3.97, CE 3.90, ED 3.76 and finally, GC 3.58 (Fig. 5). After the training on sustainability tools, the respondents indicated that GC was the least useful for the development of their work. There is a difference of 0.43 points between the most useful
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392 Table 2 Characteristics of survey’s respondents. Sample survey 1 Sex Male 48.6% Female 51.4% Age <24 20.8% 24-35 37.7% 36-60 38.5% >60 3.0% Country Spain 29.4% Peru 11.9% Colombia 10.3% Ecuador 8.9% Mexico 8.5% Venezuela 8.0% Argentine Republic 5.7% Chile 5.1% Other 10.5% Not answer 1.8% Occupation Employed 41.9% Self-employed 14.4% Students 29.7% Unemployed 12.3% Scholar 1.8% Occupation related to sustainability Yes 60.6% No 39.4%
Sample survey 2 53.4% 46.6% 16.6 33.8 46.8 2.9 37.9% 10.3% 9.4% 7.5% 7.2% 6.0% 3.1% 3.1% 12.9% 2.5% 45.9% 15.0% 25.2% 13.1% 1.0% 60.2% 39.8%
tool EMS and GC, which is considered the least useful for the development of their work. We found statistically significant
5
differences between all tools (Friedman test P-value <0,001). When comparing GC with the other tools, we found statistically significant differences with EMS, CE, ACV and EE (Wilcoxon test P-value <0,01), nevertheless there are not statistically significant differences between GC with ED (Wilcoxon test P-value ¼ 0,036). In the respondents who have an occupation related to the environment, it is observed that the average value of the degree of utility for one’s work increases slightly, as the GC response goes from 3.58 to 3.65. If the respondent’s gender is taken into account, men give a higher value to GC (3.64) than women (3.52), although in both cases, GC is the tool with a lower value. Regarding the country of origin, there are no remarkable differences in the results of this question. Question 3. Do you think that the lack of regulations regarding GC can be a barrier to its implementation? (Yes, No). A total of 73.5% of the respondents answered affirmatively that the lack of regulations regarding GC could be a barrier to its implementation, while 26.5% responded negatively to this issue. (95% confidence interval: 68,6% - 78,4%). This assessment does not change if the occupation, gender and country of residence of the respondents are considered. Question 4. Do you think that more training in GC would facilitate its implementation in organizations? (Yes, No). A total of 92.2% of respondents answered affirmatively that an increase in GC training could facilitate its implementation in organizations, while only 7.8% responded negatively to this question. (95% confidence interval: 89,2% - 95,2%). This result does not
Total number of respondent: 565 Fig. 2. Degree of knowledge about different sustainability tools and strategies.
6
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
Fig. 3. Information given by respondents about the previous use of sustainability/environmental tools.
Fig. 4. Degree of utility of tools for sustainability (percentage).
change if the occupation, gender and country of residence of the respondents are considered.
the gender and country of residence of the respondents are not significant.
Question 5. Rate the following proposed actions to promote GC.
Question 6. What other actions could be carried out in order to promote GC? (Open answer).
The proposed actions received the following average assessments: GC ecolabels on products, 4.22; improve specific training in GC, 4.04; improve the relationship between research in GC and administrations in order to have a regulatory framework, 3.98; and evaluation of the GC processes, 3.97. Thus, all received high and similar ratings. The proposed actions received the following average assessment for the respondents whose occupations are related to the environment: GC ecolabels on products, 4.16; improve the relationship between research in GC and administrations in order to have a regulatory framework, 4.10; evaluation of the GC processes, 4.02; and improve specific training in GC, 3.98. Differences due to
A total of 155 responses were received to this open question, which were analyzed and grouped into 4 main categories (Fig. 6). The most numerous proposals are related to education 47.3%, followed by regulation 31.1%, research 16 9% and others 4.7%. Education includes improvement of training 25.7%, awareness 13.5% and dissemination 8.1%. In relation to regulation, the proposals are related to the adoption of norms 16.2% as well as the establishment of incentives 6.8%, rates 3.4%, ecolabels 2.7% and sanctions 2.0%. In research, actions related to monitoring 7.4%, R&D 6.8% and design 2.7% have been proposed. Other actions suggested are related to cross-actions 2.7% and energy 2.0%.
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
7
Fig. 5. Degree of utility of the tool for the sustainability of your job (percentage).
Fig. 6. Proposed actions to promote GC.
4. Discussion The results of survey one show us that GC is the most unknown tool in relation to the other sustainability tools that are studied in the MOOC. Although GC is recognized as a successful strategy for sustainability in the industry (Manley et al., 2008), it seems that it is not known outside of this industrial field. GC usually does not appear to be linked to sustainability but instead is linked to chemistry. Regarding the use of this tool, 92% answered that they had not used it. Although there are many daily products that have been developed following the principles of the GC (Dhage, 2013), there is still a great lack of knowledge about GC. These outcomes
suggest that GC is an unknown tool for students interested in sustainability. No major differences were found regarding the gender and country of residence of the respondents. In general, there is an increase in knowledge in GC for those respondents whose occupation is related to the environment. It seems opportune to increase the training in GC outside the scope of the industry to facilitate its application to the broad field of sustainability. The results of the survey conducted after this training show that the students positively value the usefulness of GC and consider it useful for the development of their work. However, it is the strategy that obtains the lowest rating regarding its usefulness with respect to the other tools (that were also studied and analyzed in the MOOC), but the differences between the six tools were only 0.3 out of 5 points. This may be related to the emotional barriers such as fear of chemistry or chemaphobia (Eddy, 2000). Furthermore, after the training on sustainability tools, the respondents indicated GC as the least useful for the development of their work, while EMS has the best rating. The use of EMS as a tool to improve sustainability has been used in all types of organizations lez et al., 2008; Zutshi and countries for more than 25 years (Gonza and Sohal, 2004; Lam et al., 2011), which allows it to be better known in more different areas. However, GC is especially circumscribed to the field of the chemical industry and is thus restricted in a GC community, which perhaps makes it unknown outside of that context (Epicoco et al., 2014). The main actions proposed for students to promote GC, education, regulation and research are in the line of the conclusion of other studies. The pharmaceutical industry has also identified the improvement of training in green chemistry as a key element for its development in this sector (Constable et al., 2007). The benchmarking study about GC adoption by “big pharma” concluded that environmental regulation helps to advance GC practice into supply chain (Veleva and W. Cue Jr, 2017) while the survey report about implementing GC in chemical manufacturing pointed out that educating in GC to external chemical manufacturer stakeholders was the best practice to boost GC (Giraud et al., 2014). One of the novel aspects of this research is its approach out of chemical environment and formal education.
8
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392
In previous studies it has been pointed out that this kind of MOOC could be a good platform to sustainability education and chemistry teaching (Zhan et al., 2015; Li and Zhou, 2018), and online could be a good way to incorporating GC into the curriculum (Haley et al., 2018), but nevertheless this experience suggests the need to take GC training outside of the field of chemistry, to deal more closely with other sustainability tools. In addition, this MOOC facilitates the transfer of knowledge about GC outside the academic field, since this course does not establish prerequisites for its access, which represents a novelty in relation to other previous studies. Finally, it must be pointed out that this research has several limitations. Firstly, due to the language of MOOC, the sample is not a global but a survey mostly Spanish and Latin American countries, so it could be interesting make a new study with a more global sample that including English speaking countries. Secondly, there are limitations related to the use of a survey to collect the data such as bias of respondents, selection of questions included in the questionnaire, or incorrect answers due to lack of information or education.
5. Conclusions It is firstly noted that the investigation has shown that GC is the most unknown tool in relation to the other sustainability tools that are studied in the MOOC. However, it is important to highlight that after this training, students positively value the usefulness of GC and consider it useful for the development of their work. GC is recognized in the industrial and chemical field as one of the most efficient sustainable tools, but beyond the field of chemistry is the most unknown tool. The authors have detected the need to increase the training on GC outside the chemical field, in which it could be highly profitable. Particularly, a scant level of knowledge about GC has been detected in the MOOC participants. Furthermore, the findings of the evaluation suggest that almost all respondent have increased their interest about GC as a tool for advising sustainability. It seems opportune to increase the effort in disseminating knowledge about GC outside the academic, chemical and industrial scope. It is important to improve its interconnection with other areas of environmental knowledge, which drives the advancement of sustainability. For this purpose, new strategies can be used, such as the one shown in this manuscript through MOOCs, that bring specific knowledge to different and large audiences. For that reason, it is necessary to establish multidisciplinary work teams with a broad and open vision that allows covering the knowledge needs necessary to advance in sustainability. It would also be opportune to involve public administrations for environmental regulation in the legal framework, which encourages the implementation and more widespread use of GC. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Natalia Loste: Writing - original draft, Investigation, Writing review & editing, Data curation. David Chinarro: Software, Methn: odology. Manuel Gomez: Software, Methodology. Esther Rolda Supervision. Beatriz Giner: Conceptualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Acknowledgments Financial support from the Spanish MINECO (projects CTQ 201344867-P), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Government of Aragon, Consolidated Group E105 is gratefully acknowledged. GreenLife acknowledges financial support from n Energe tica and Brial (ENAEEE53 SL: Pinares de Venecia Divisio TICA). Both business groups are committed to sustainable development through environmental respect. References Allen, I.E., Seaman, C.A., 2007. Likert scales and data analyses. Qual. Prog. 40 (7), 64e65. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2012.13013. Anastas, P., Eghbali, N., 2010. Green chemistry: principles and practice. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39 (1), 301e312. https://doi.org/10.1039/B918763B. Anastas, P.T., Kirchhoff, M.M., 2002. Origins, current status, and future challenges of green chemistry. Acc. Chem. Res. 35 (9), 686e694. https://doi.org/10.1021/ ar010065m. Anastas, P.T., Warner, J.C., 1998. Principles of green chemistry. Green Chem.: Theor. Pract. 29e56. Arabi, S., Golabchi, M., Darabpour, M., 2018. Sustainable development in cities: a qualitative approach to evaluate rating systems. Civil Engineering Journal 4 (12), 2990e3004. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-03091215. Azeiteiro, U.M., Bacelar-Nicolau, P., Caetano, F.J., Caeiro, S., 2015. Education for sustainable development through e-learning in higher education: experiences from Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 308e319. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2014.11.056. Bacelar-Nicolau, P., Caeiro, S., Martinho, A., Azeiteiro, U., Amador, F., 2009. Elearning for the environment: the Universidade Aberta (Portuguese Open Distance University) experience in the environmental sciences post-graduate courses. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 10 (4), 354e367. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14676370910990701. Beach, E.S., Cui, Z., Anastas, P.T., 2009. Green Chemistry: a design framework for sustainability. Energy Environ. Sci. 2 (10), 1038e1049. https://doi.org/10.1039/ b904997p. Brouns, F., Teixeira, A., Morgado, L., Fano, S., Fueyo, A., Jansen, D., 2017. Designing massive open online learning processes: the sMOOC pedagogical framework. In: Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-662-52925-6_16. Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., Eilks, I., 2012. Education for sustainable development (ESD) and chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13 (2), 59e68. https:// doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90060a. Cann, M.C., Dickneider, T.A., 2004. Infusing the chemistry curriculum with green chemistry using real-world examples, web modules, and atom economy in organic chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ. 81 (7), 977. https://doi.org/10.1021/ ed081p977. Collins, T.J., 2017. Review of the twenty-three year evolution of the first university course in green chemistry: teaching future leaders how to create sustainable societies. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 93e110. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2015.06.136. Constable, D.J., Dunn, P.J., Hayler, J.D., Humphrey, G.R., Leazer Jr, J.L., Linderman, R.J., Lorenz, K., Manley, J., Pearlman, B.A., Wells, A., 2007. Key green chemistry research areasda perspective from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Green Chem. 9 (5), 411e420. https://doi.org/10.1039/b703488c. Darabpour, M.R., Darabpour, M., Sardroud, J.M., Smallwood, J., Tabarsa, G., 2018. Practical approaches toward sustainable development in Iranian green construction. Civil Engineering Journal 4 (10), 2450e2465. https://doi.org/ 10.28991/cej-03091172. , S., 2013. A review on massive e-learning Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., Caballe (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. Paper presented at P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and Internet computing (3PGCIC), 2013 eighth international conference on. https://doi.org/10.1109/3pgcic.2013.37. nez-Gonza lez, C., Dahlin, P., Dewulf, J., 2017. Challenges and De Soete, W., Jime recommendations for environmental sustainability assessments of pharmaceutical products in the healthcare sector. Green Chem. 19 (15), 3493e3509. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7gc00833c. Dhage, S.D., 2013. Applications OF green chemistry principles IN every day life. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Chem. 3 (3), 518e520. Diamond, S., Irwin, B., 2013. Using e-learning for student sustainability literacy: framework and review. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 14 (4), 338e348. https:// doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-09-2011-0060. Dunn, P.J., 2012. The importance of green chemistry in process research and development. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41 (4), 1452e1461. https://doi.org/10.1039/ C1CS15041C. Eddy, R.M., 2000. Chemophobia in the college classroom: extent, sources, and student characteristics. J. Chem. Educ. 77 (4), 514. https://doi.org/10.1021/ ed077p514. Eilks, I., Rauch, F., 2012. Sustainable development and green chemistry in chemistry education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13 (2), 57e58. https://doi.org/10.1039/ C2RP90003C.
N. Loste et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 256 (2020) 120392 Epelboin, Y., 2014. Mooc 2014: should universities enter the competition? EUNIS Journal of Higher Education (2014/1). http://hdl.handle.net/11366/479. Epicoco, M., Oltra, V., Saint Jean, M., 2014. Knowledge dynamics and sources of ecoinnovation: mapping the Green Chemistry community. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81, 388e402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.006. Eissen, M., Metzger, J.O., Schmidt, E., Schneidewind, U., 2002. 10 years after Riodconcepts on the contribution of chemistry to a sustainable development. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41 (3), 414e436. https://doi.org/10.1002/15213773(20020201)41:3<414::aid-anie414>3.0.co;2-n. Gil Quintana, J., 2016. Las redes sociales en el modelo sMOOC. Giraud, R.J., Williams, P.A., Sehgal, A., Ponnusamy, E., Phillips, A.K., Manley, J.B., 2014. Implementing Green Chemistry in Chemical Manufacturing: A Survey Report. ACS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc500427d. lez, P., Sarkis, J., Adenso-Díaz, B., 2008. Environmental management system Gonza certification and its influence on corporate practices: evidence from the automotive industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 28 (11), 1021e1041. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/01443570810910179. Gross, E.M., 2012. Green chemistry and sustainability: an undergraduate course for science and nonscience majors. J. Chem. Educ. 90 (4), 429e431. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/ed200756z. Groves, R.M., 1989. Survey Costs and Survey Errors. New York. Günter, T., Akkuzu, N., Alpat, S¸., 2017. Understanding ‘green chemistry’and ‘sustainability’: an example of problem-based learning (PBL). Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 35 (4), 500e520. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1353964. Haack, J.A., Hutchison, J.E., 2016. Green Chemistry Education: 25 Years of Progress and 25 Years Ahead. ACS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acssuschemeng.6b02069. Haley, R.A., Ringo, J.M., Hopgood, H., Denlinger, K.L., Das, A., Waddell, D.C., 2018. Graduate student designed and delivered: an upper-level online course for undergraduates in green chemistry and sustainability. J. Chem. Educ. 95 (4), 560e569. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00730. Hjeresen, D.L., Boese, J.M., Schutt, D.L., 2000. Green chemistry and education. J. Chem. Educ. 77 (12), 1543. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p1543. Hjeresen, D.L., Kirchhoff, M.M., Lankey, R.L., 2002. Green chemistry: environment, economics, and competitiveness. Corp. Environ. Strat. 9 (3), 259e266. https:// doi.org/10.1016/s1066-7938(02)00068-4. Hutchison, J.E., 2019. Systems thinking and green chemistry: powerful levers for curricular change and adoption. J. Chem. Educ. 96 (12), 2777e2783. https:// doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00334. Jordan, K., 2014. Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 15 (1) https://doi.org/10.19173/ irrodl.v15i1.1651. Juran, J.M., 1993. Quality Planning and Analysis; from Product Development through Use. Karpudewan, M., Ismail, Z., Roth, W.-M., 2012. Ensuring sustainability of tomorrow through green chemistry integrated with sustainable development concepts (SDCs). Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13 (2), 120e127. https://doi.org/10.1039/ c1rp90066h. Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292 (5517), 641e642. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059386. Kirchhoff, M.M., 2005. Promoting sustainability through green chemistry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44 (3), 237e243. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2005.01.003. Levy, I.J., Haack, J.A., Hutchison, J.E., Kirchhoff, M.M., 2005. Going green: lecture assignments and lab experiences for the college curriculum: ACS Publications. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p974. Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Chau, C., Poon, C., Chun, K., 2011. Environmental management system vs green specifications: how do they complement each other in the construction industry? J. Environ. Manag. 92 (3), 788e795. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.030. Li, Z., 2017. The reform and innovation of chemistry classroom teaching mode in the era of big data. Paper presented at 2017 9th international conference on measuring technology and mechatronics automation (ICMTMA). https://doi. org/10.1109/icmtma.2017.0107. Li, C., Zhou, H., 2018. Enhancing the efficiency of massive online learning by integrating intelligent analysis into MOOCs with an application to education of sustainability. Sustainability 10 (2), 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020468. Loste, N., Callao, C., Giner, B., Chinarro, D., 2017. Use of MOOCs for spreading knowhow on circular economy and environmental sustainability. EDULEARN17 Proceedings: IATED 9900e9906. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.0873. Loste, N., Rold an, E., Giner, B., 2019a. Is Green Chemistry a feasible tool for the implementation of a circular economy? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 1e13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07177-5.
9
n, E., Lomba, L., Giner, B., 2019b. Green chemistry and environmental Loste, N., Rolda management systems: relationships, synergies, advantages and barriers of joint implementation at universities. Environ. Manag. 64 (6), 783e793. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01218-y. Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Seatter, C.S., 2015. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205e215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.031. Manley, J.B., Anastas, P.T., Cue Jr., B.W., 2008. Frontiers in green chemistry: meeting the grand challenges for sustainability in R&D and manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (6), 743e750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.025. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., Littlejohn, A., 2015. Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Comput. Educ. 80, 77e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2014.08.005. Marteel-Parrish, A.E., 2014. Teaching green and sustainable chemistry: a revised one-semester course based on inspirations and challenges. J. Chem. Educ. 91 (7), 1084e1086. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400393b. Martinho, A.P., Caeiro, S., Caetano, F.J., Azeiteiro, U., Nicolau, P.B., 2014. Training and employability, competences from an e-learning undergraduate programme in environmental sciences. E-learning and education for sustainability 47e58. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02460-9/13. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., Cormier, D., 2010. The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. Miyazoe, T., Anderson, T., 2013. Interaction equivalency in an OER, MOOCS and informal learning era. https://doi.org/10.5334/2013-09. Otto, D., Caeiro, S., Nicolau, P., Disterheft, A., Teixeira, A., Becker, S., Bollmann, A., Sander, K., 2019. Can MOOCs empower people to critically think about climate change? A learning outcome based comparison of two MOOCs. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 12e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.190. O’Malley, P.J., Agger, J.R., Anderson, M.W., 2015. Teaching a chemistry MOOC with a virtual laboratory: lessons learned from an introductory physical chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 92 (10), 1661e1666. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.jchemed.5b00118. €thling, M., du Plessis, A., Pretorius, R., Nicolau, M., Immelman, J., de Jager, A., No 2015. Virtual learning environments for transformation to sustainability: a case study from the “south”. In: Integrating Sustainability Thinking in Science and Engineering Curricula. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09474-8_ 24. Salant, P., Dillman, I., Don, A., 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. Salguero, R.M., Aguaded, I., 2014. Los MOOC en la plataforma educativa MiriadaX. Profr. Rev. Curríc. Form. Profr. 18 (1), 137e153. https://doi.org/10.30827/ profesorado.v23i3.9399. Shapiro, H.B., Lee, C.H., Roth, N.E.W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., Canelas, D.A., 2017. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: an examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput. Educ. 110, 35e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003. Sheldon, R.A., 2018. Metrics of green chemistry and sustainability: past, present, and future. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6 (1), 32e48. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acssuschemeng.7b03505. Sikdar, S.K., 2003. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE J. 49 (8), 1928e1932. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490802. Summerton, L., Taylor, R.J., Clark, J.H., 2016. Promoting the uptake of green and sustainable methodologies in pharmaceutical synthesis: CHEM21 education and training initiatives. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 4, 67e76. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2016.09.003. Summerton, L., Hurst, G.A., Clark, J.H., 2018. Facilitating active learning within green chemistry. Current opinion in green and sustainable chemistry. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.04.002. Veleva, V., Cue Jr., B.W., 2017. Benchmarking green chemistry adoption by “big pharma” and generics manufacturers. Benchmark Int. J. 24 (5), 1414e1436. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-01-2016-0003. Watson, W.J., 2012. How do the fine chemical, pharmaceutical, and related industries approach green chemistry and sustainability? Green Chem. 14 (2), 251e259. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1gc15904f. Zhan, Z., Fong, P., Mei, H., Chang, X., Liang, T., Ma, Z., 2015. Sustainability education in massive open online courses: a content analysis approach. Sustainability 7 (3), 2274e2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032274. Zhang, L., 2019. Big data, knowledge mapping for sustainable development: a water quality index case study. Emerging Science Journal 3 (4), 249e254. https:// doi.org/10.28991/esj-2019-01187. Zutshi, A., Sohal, A., 2004. Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organisations: part 1: reasons, benefits and impediments. Technovation 24 (4), 335e357. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(02)00053-6.