Abstract
The Future17 Program provides universities with an educational approach and mode of delivery that develops leaders for work in organizations that address the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as “grand challenges.” We develop a conceptual framework to structure our reflection based on three attributes of “grand challenges”: interdisciplinary approaches, organizational complexity, and multicultural skills. Using a case study method, we reflect on the experiences of five key academic staff, including one within the team responsible for the global implementation of Future17, the academic lead for one of the consortium university members, and three academic mentors from the same university. We offer a conceptual model for addressing “grand challenges” in the context of the Future17 program, practical guidance for universities to implement Future17, and insights for project scoping and deliverables on a timeline, while also discussing the limitations of our study and directions for future research.
Introduction
Since its inception in 2022, the Future17 Program has delivered learning outcomes for education designed to address “grand challenges.” Such challenges are large-scale, complex problems involving multiple stakeholders at various levels, including individuals, organizations, countries, and the world (George et al., 2016). Future17 aims to advance the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), as they address climate change, poverty, inequality, and ecological sustainability—classified as “grand challenges” (George et al., 2016; Seelos et al., 2023). They traverse multiple dimensions—economic, social, and environmental—that differ across contexts and are dynamic, with dimensions and their characteristics transforming over time (Funke, 2010).
A persistent problem for management education is that “grand challenges” may be inadvertently oversimplified due to the confinement of learning outcomes within academic disciplinary silos (George et al., 2016). Sharma et al. (2022) relate such challenges to “wicked problems,” such as those requiring multiple stakeholders; in particular, where researchers and managers come together to cocreate solutions. George et al. (2016) argue that interdisciplinary efforts, which bring together diverse academic fields, can create more holistic and effective solutions to these multifaceted issues. Educators must focus on enhancing students’ higher-order cognitive skills and big-picture thinking (André, 2020; Porter & Córdoba, 2009; Urdan & Luoma, 2020). Sroufe (2020) highlights the use of interdisciplinary methodologies in business schools, referring to them as “living labs” for advancing sustainability. Importantly, Future17 is not confined to a single faculty. In this article, we provide a reflection from the perspective of management educators with respect to the unique role they play in implementing the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) (Maloni et al., 2012) and developing interdisciplinary learning (Smith et al., 2024).
The Future17 Program, established in 2022 by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and its co-founding partner, connects university students globally to address the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Each project is comprised of teams of six to eight students from a diverse range of countries, two academic mentors from different academic disciplines, and a partner organization from the QS ImpACT Charity network. These partners include for-profit, not-for-profit, government, and community groups, which range from startups to global organizations and charities. The number of projects for each of the three intakes in 2021, 2022, and 2023 was 11, 50, and 68, respectively. Over an 8-week period, student teams collaborate to develop innovative solutions while building essential 21st-century skills through hands-on experience with sustainable development challenges aligned with the UN’s Agenda 2030.
In this case study, we incorporate first-person reflective narratives from multiple authors to provide a rich description with insights about the Future17 program in a single university. Future17 builds on the latent interdisciplinary knowledge of key stakeholders in universities—academic scholars and students—and organizations affiliated with them, via projects that support the achievement of the UN SDGs. Our authorial voice is represented by a staff member within the team responsible for the global implementation of Future17, and four key staff (three mentors and a senior administrator) from 1 university within the consortium of 14 universities. Together, we provide rich vignettes, with insights exploring an approach to management education as well as practical advice for any university that may adopt the Future17 model. Given the nascency of the program, we anticipate a “before and after” examination of Future17 course-level learning outcomes at a later stage. At this juncture, we offer a case study as a rich description of a complex, interdisciplinary, multicultural, and yet practical, educational program.
We adopted George et al.’s (2016) framework to demonstrate how SDGs are “grand challenges” addressed by Future17 projects and make three contributions. First, we conceptualize three categories of attributes for education that address SDGs: interdisciplinary approaches, organizational complexity, and multicultural skills. Interdisciplinary approaches integrate knowledge, theories, and methodologies from various disciplines in universities. Organizational complexity refers to the multi-level, scaled, project scoping capability to match diverse stakeholder interests with project deliverables within a defined timeframe. Multicultural skills are comprised of empathy, cross-cultural competence, and international dimensions required to achieve SDGs. Second, we present a method to systematically examine the reflections of a research team. Third, we offer practical implications such as implementation insights and pitfalls for the awareness of educators who may be implementing Future17 learning outcomes in courses, and their broader fit within their curriculum.
We reflect on the Future17 initiative as an authorial group of senior university administrators, teaching fellows and senior lecturers, each with over a decade of teaching experience in a globally top-ranked university, posing the question: How does the Future17 program offer a mode of delivery in which management education is uniquely placed to develop leaders that address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as “grand challenges”? Crucially, Future17 involves experiential learning via an interdisciplinary approach that brings together not only students, but also academic scholars as mentors from diverse disciplinary areas from various fields, including medicine, law, engineering, and the humanities. This approach aligns with a theoretical framework that emphasizes the necessity for holistic methods to tackle “grand challenges” (George et al., 2016).
In the next section we develop a conceptual framework for our study based on a selective review of management education literature on SDGs. Selective reviews are appropriate for studies in which the research purpose and outcomes are exploratory (Edwards & di Ruffano, 2024), which suits the exploratory nature of the ethnographic reflections in our study. Following this, we explain our case study approach as a method and how the voice of our authorial team uses collaborative ethnographic techniques to examine our experience in the implementation of the Future17 program. As both academic mentors in the Future17 program and the co-authors of this article, we discuss the benefits and challenges we have faced and provide insights about management education that addresses SDGs as “grand challenges.” The article concludes with a summary of insights, practical implications, and suggestions for universities interested in implementing the Future17 program.
Conceptual Framework
To examine how management education can address “grand challenges” within a program of study, we adopted George et al.’s (2016) conceptual framework. Several studies have explored management education in addressing societal challenges (Sroufe, 2020; Urdan & Luoma, 2020) and SDGs in particular (e.g., Chankseliani & McCowan, 2021). We reviewed this literature to conceptualize a framework for the authorial team to reflect on the Future17 program as a mode of delivery concerning SDGs in management education. Though we anchored our framework on George et al.’s (2016) model, we have woven in relevant concepts of management education from other studies to posit three categories of attributes for “grand challenges”: (i) interdisciplinary approaches, (ii) complexity in organizing, and (iii) multicultural skills. We build on studies in international business education (Dieleman et al., 2022), integrative learning in climate leadership courses (André, 2020), and their problematization within management education (Arnold & Norton, 2021; Kanashiro et al., 2020; Middleton & Alday, 2023).
George et al. (2016) emphasize the need for collaboration to tackle “grand challenges,” highlighting their complexity, and provide a framework that elucidates the skills required to understand the issues and inspire management scholars to engage participants within their institutions. Adopting a theory-driven approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006), we rely on the use of the term interdisciplinary in various contexts of management education to denote different approaches and methodologies for integrating multiple academic disciplines. Comer and Schwartz (2020) examine complexity in character development within management education, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary approaches to address the multifaceted nature of leadership and decision making. Both Dieleman et al. (2022) and De Vos et al. (2024) discuss the importance of interdisciplinary courses in fostering a global mindset and preparing students for impactful careers. These discussions underscore the interconnectedness of complexity, interdisciplinarity, and multicultural themes, illustrating that addressing global challenges requires new ways of delivering management education that integrate diverse perspectives and methodologies to navigate and solve complex issues.
Complexity in Organizing for “Grand Challenges”
Complexity is a concept referenced in a broad range of literature. In the context of management education and “grand challenges,” George et al. (2016) discuss complexity as an inherent characteristic of “grand challenges,” emphasizing the need for comprehensive, interdisciplinary research approaches to develop effective solutions. They argue that addressing complex global issues, such as climate change and public health crises, requires integrating diverse perspectives and methodologies to capture the intricate interplay of factors involved. Chankseliani and McCowan (2021) similarly highlight the complexity of aligning higher education with the SDGs. They point out that achieving these goals necessitates a holistic approach, incorporating social, economic, and environmental dimensions. The authors argue that universities must navigate this complexity by fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative teaching methods to prepare students for real-world challenges. Dieleman et al. (2022) focus on the complexity of teaching innovations in international business education. They emphasize that modern business environments are characterized by rapid change and uncertainty, requiring educational practices that prepare students to navigate this complexity.
Complexity spans both organizational levels and international contexts. Cruz et al. (2020) address the complexity in entrepreneurship education, highlighting the dynamic and unpredictable nature of global markets. In their exploration of higher education’s role in sustainable development, Chankseliani and McCowan (2021) underscore the complexity of balancing educational, research, community engagement functions and a nuanced understanding of local and global contexts. They argue that the complexity of SDGs requires higher education institutions to adopt comprehensive, interdisciplinary strategies that can address the multifaceted nature of these global issues (Chankseliani & McCowan, 2021). Dorado et al. (2022) explores complexity through the lens of “grand challenges,” identifying the need for interdisciplinary research to tackle these multifaceted social problems. The paper highlights the importance of integrating diverse perspectives and knowledge areas to address the inherent complexity of these challenges. Dorado et al. (2022) delve into the complexity of social innovation, highlighting the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental factors. At the individual level, Comer and Schwartz (2020) examine complexity through the lens of character development in management education, adapting ethical and psychological principles to address the multifaceted nature of leadership and decision making. While all these papers recognize the significance of complexity, they also offer perspectives in their specific applications and contexts, ranging from building systems and interdisciplinary dialogues to global challenges and the role of higher education in advancing concepts in sustainability.
Interdisciplinary Approaches to “Grand Challenges”
An interdisciplinary approach refers to a method of problem solving and research that integrates knowledge, theories, and methodologies from multiple academic disciplines to address complex issues to develop solutions that are unlikely to be achieved through any single discipline (André, 2025; George et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2022). Sroufe (2020) emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary competencies in management education, particularly in the context of sustainability. That study advocates for a collaborative, dynamic pedagogy that integrates financial, human, environmental, informational resources to create shared value decision making, and the interdisciplinary skills to solve complex, real-world problems. Similarly, Gutierrez-Huerter et al. (2024) discuss the role of interdisciplinary dialogues in bridging academic disciplines through student-led initiatives. Chankseliani and McCowan (2021) focus on the role of higher education in achieving the SDGs, noting that interdisciplinary approaches are essential for addressing global challenges such as gender equality, poverty, and environmental sustainability, underscoring the need for universities to adopt interdisciplinary methods to fulfill their educational, research, and engagement functions effectively. Specific to the concept of “grand challenges,” Dorado et al. (2022) emphasize the need for interdisciplinary research to tackle complex social problems and identify the importance of integrating diverse perspectives and knowledge areas to address these challenges effectively.
Teaching innovations in management education with an interdisciplinary approach are more common in subjects that are inherently global. Dieleman et al. (2022) argue that interdisciplinary teaching innovations in the field of international business enhance students’ learning experiences by exposing them to varied pedagogical practices and knowledge areas that prepare them for the complexities of global business environments. This is echoed by De Vos et al. (2024), who discuss how interdisciplinary courses can open minds and lead to careers with impact, thus shaping future leaders in this field of study. Comer and Schwartz (2020) further illustrate the benefits of interdisciplinary approaches by adapting the development of management students’ character; by way of blending ethical, psychological, and business studies. Similarly, Cruz et al. (2020) argue for the integration of interdisciplinary methods in entrepreneurship education to address the dynamic nature of global markets. Shapiro Beigh (2025) expounds the role of management educators in particular to “provoke” sustainability. Broadly speaking, there is strong support for an interdisciplinary approach in management education within a global context.
Multicultural Skills for “Grand Challenges”
Multicultural skills are fundamental to traversing the global landscape of implementation challenges for solutions that address “grand challenges.” Though there is no comprehensive definition of multicultural skills in the context of “grand challenges” in management education, there are a few studies upon which we can build to this end. Relying on George et al. (2016), we define multicultural skills as the competencies to effectively communicate, manage diverse stakeholder interests across organizational layers, and leverage the strengths of diversity in multicultural teams. Chankseliani and McCowan (2021) emphasize the global scope of the SDGs, noting that these goals require a concerted effort from higher education institutions worldwide to address issues such as poverty, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. Similarly, Sroufe (2020) discusses the global imperative of a multicultural approach to sustainability, advocating for the integration of sustainability and preparing students to address worldwide environmental challenges.
Dorado et al. (2022) contend that “grand challenges” are inherently global in nature, requiring coordinated effort across nations and disciplines to address complex social problems. Solitander et al. (2012) discuss the PRME, which aims to prepare students for global leadership roles by integrating corporate social responsibility and sustainability into the curriculum. De Vos et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of developing a global perspective in students, particularly through experiential learning projects that address global challenges like the SDGs. Dieleman et al. (2022) discuss global issues in the context of international business education, highlighting the dissemination of pedagogical innovations and their impact beyond traditional educational boundaries.
In summary, several scholars such as George et al. (2016), Chankseliani and McCowan (2021), and Parola et al. (2022) focus on global challenges and sustainable development, emphasizing the need for strategic and institutional collaboration. They all emphasize the practical applications of global methodologies in education, while Gutierrez-Huerter et al. (2024) and Cruz et al. (2020) provide insights into interdisciplinary approaches and personal narratives. Empirically, these studies focus on business schools and management education programs integrating responsible management, ethics, and sustainability. Solitander et al. (2012) examine the implementation of the UN PRME initiative as faculty members in key roles to embed corporate responsibility into curricula. Comer and Schwartz (2020) explore an undergraduate management course and an online MBA ethics course in a U.S. university. De Vos et al. (2024) analyze a global leadership course at a large European university which integrates teamwork on SDG-focused projects. Sroufe (2020) investigates a decade-long MBA sustainability competition where students propose real-world renovations to their business school building as a living lab. Considering the multifaceted nature of global institutional collaboration, studies to advance George et al.’s (2016) framework are necessarily more global, with relevance in various academic fields and to management education in the context of SDGs as “grand challenges”—empirically our study of the Future17 Program is well-suited to advance scholarship in this area.
Methodology
We adopted a case study design to make inferences about a concept through extension (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The research site focuses on one university member within the Future17 consortium with our authorial team representing four staff from that particular university plus a senior staff member in a key role implementing the Future17 Program worldwide. Insights are based on George et al.’s (2016) framework for addressing “grand challenges.” We used theory-driven analytical techniques (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and reveal insights through our authorial voice as representative quotes.
Following Yin (2018), case studies are used to explain, describe, or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur. While we did not conduct a collaborative autoethnography per se (see Arnold & Norton, 2021; Belkhir et al., 2019; Cruz et al., 2020 for exemplars) our reflective process included some ethnographic techniques as individuals, planned meetings and circumstantial dialogue that, in combination, provide rich narratives from different disciplines to explore Future17 projects broadly as global social phenomena. Through our participation as Future17 mentors, we gathered insights into the structure, process, and benefits for Future17 stakeholders: students, organizations (partners), and other educators (mentors). Our research team consisted of five members, each with specialized expertise. Although all five researchers currently work within the field of business studies, our collective formal education includes biology and ecology that span the faculties of science and commerce. All have 10–25 years of experience in instructional design in bachelor and master level courses. Collectively, our team exemplifies collaboration through an interdisciplinary approach (see Table 1).
Research Team—Self Descriptions.
Case Setting: The Future17 Program
The Future17 Program was co-founded by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and the University of Exeter (Quacquarelli Symonds, 2022, September 20). The program is a global initiative to support students in their career development as well as to find innovative solutions to real-world problems associated with the UN SDGs. Future17 was intentionally designed as an interdisciplinary program. While some participants, including students and academic mentors, came from business schools in the international university network, the program sought representation from a wide range of academic disciplines. Participants came from various faculties and departments, including the humanities, health sciences, environmental studies, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. In this article, we focus on management education because of its significant role in development of interdisciplinary educational approaches (Ledley & Holt, 2014; Maloni et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2024). When the single university—the University of Auckland—joined the Future17 consortium in 2022, four of the five co-authors joined Future17 as university staff and academic mentors. At the time of writing, the Future17 consortium consisted of 14 universities (viz., Quacquarelli Symonds, 2024).
Future17 projects were defined by partner organizations, charities, start-ups, and global organizations (designated “partners” in the Future17 learning model) initially from the QS ImpACT Charity (Quacquarelli Symonds, 2024). Each project had deliverables that forwarded one or more of the UN SDGs, suited for completion by a group of 6 to 8 university students over an 8-week period (see Figure 1). Project definition may also have had more fine-grained requirements matched to the 169 targets within the SDGs (viz. United Nations, 2024). The university students were selected from at least three universities in the consortium and placed with one or two members of academic staff (labeled “academic mentors” by Future17) with matched backgrounds according to the preferences they indicated after reading a one-page project summary provided by each partner. Though universities had autonomy in how they selected their students for engagement with the Future17 program, guidance was provided by dedicated Future17 administrative support from QS and the University of Exeter to “academic leads”; that is, appointed staff members from each university who were responsible for leading program implementation at their respective universities. The academic outputs were commonly in the form of a written report—though this was open for partners to specify—and oral presentations pitched as a team. Some universities offered Future17 for credit (e.g., as an elective) whereas others offered it as a co- or extra-curricular element as part of employability training. The Future17 Program Handbook (2023) guides partners, mentors, and students to project completion, and students were encouraged to adopt Belbin’s team roles when forming teams (cf. Aritzeta et al., 2007). The handbook offers detailed guidance for students common to all participating universities in the consortium on induction, defining roles and responsibilities for groupwork, completion of an ethics pack for engagement with third parties, expectations for assignments, criteria for assessment, a reflective journal template, feedback and evaluation, and further resources.
Future17 project timeline.
Prior to the 8-week groupwork challenge, all Future17 students completed a custom-designed, asynchronous induction course. The induction, developed by environmental education specialists Lestari (lestari.org), provided an introductory overview to the key theories and skills needed by all Future17 students, including design and systems thinking, circular economy, and other applied sustainability approaches. Upon completion of the induction, students earned a digital certificate, which may serve as a micro-credential for their Future17 learning journey.
Interdisciplinary approaches in the Future17 program were observed in several ways: geographically by culture; by sector; by SDG; and institutionally (Future17 SDGs Challenge Program, 2024). Based on the observations of the authorial team, students gained several skills in managing their projects. Student teams organized regular meetings (often once per week); conducted secondary research using design thinking principles (Camacho, 2016; Glen et al., 2014) and the SDG lens; employed critical thinking and problem-solving skills to examine relevant environments; and collaboratively developed their deliverables. In the process, they developed group collaboration, time management, and project management skills. They also honed their skills in the use of online collaborative tools; gained an understanding of how to respect other cultures and manage cultural differences; communicated effectively; enhanced leadership skills; and systematically developed a set of feasible and actionable solutions, which they showcased through concise presentations and a written piece. The key takeaway was developing new capabilities to appreciate and apply SDGs to create a better future for the world. Students came from majors in commerce, engineering, science, arts, law, global studies, and design; and, from bachelor, master, MBA (Master of Business Administration), and PhD study programs (see Table 2).
Consortium Study Program Represented by Project Intake 2022 to 2023 (Number of Students with the Total for each intake shown in bold).
Note. Reprinted the table using the Future 17 Program data, with permission of Quacquarelli Symonds.
The role of the academic mentor was critical in the success of projects. As students were from a range of countries and had a co-mentor from a different university, mentors liaised between the Future17 partner and the student teams. The mentors’ main role was to help define the project’s scope; encourage students’ fair and active participation; and provide clarification and guidance to help students with their investigation and development of actionable solutions. Mentors coordinate with each partner and the Future17 program coordinator to arrange meetings and clarify project outcome formats. Mentors played a key role in the summative assessment process, providing feedback and quantitative marks that each university in the consortium subsequently interpreted and applied to their respective students. A vital role for mentors was the “scoping” of projects at the start of groupwork; this involved guiding students through project requirements and shaping what they would be able to produce within 8 weeks with the deliverables outlined by the partner. Their regular support to the team, advice and guidance during the project period and challenging the team’s ideas toward strategy development were important to the outcome. Further, in instances where team members did not actively participate, mentors assumed the role of mediator, coach, and encourager to help the team continue with their collaborative work and meet important deadlines. This experience enabled the authors to gain capabilities in supporting a multicultural team that worked in multiple time zones and addressed a real business or social problem.
Final deliverables, initially outlined by partners and refined through collaboration, varied in form (e.g., brochures, marketing plans, reports) to best address partners’ challenges. Students also provided a written summary and live presentation, which were assessed by mentors or other appointed examiners. Partners received a quasi-consultancy service, benefiting from fresh, objective perspectives from global student teams. Most projects resulted in tangible, actionable solutions that could be implemented in the short–medium term, potentially impacting the organizations’ goals related to the UN SDGs (see Figures 2 and 3). In some cases, students went on to undertake internships at the project partner organization.
SDGs represented by project across the consortium 2022 to 2024.
Sector representation by project across the consortium 2022 to 2024.
The Future17 Program at a Single University Within the Consortium
Focusing on a single university (8 mentors, 12–20 students for each of the 3 project intakes in this study) within the consortium (14 universities), we reflect on our distinctive role, understanding that our reflections may not be applicable to the unique context for each other university. That said, we observed some common refinements in the delivery of Future17 learning outcomes as a consortium university member that benefitted from iterations of presentations and feedback over 2 years—both within our single university and across the consortium (see Tables 3 and 4). As such, our authorial voice reflects that of the core academics in a single university within the consortium of Future17 universities. Although globally, the University of Exeter oversaw the academic implementation of the Future17 program, each university in the consortium had an academic lead and a project manager. These roles are crucial because the inter-faculty adoption of Future17 comes from the overarching vision of driving impact and raising the university’s profile. In the single consortium university pertaining to our co-authors, we started with our university’s internal newsletter and featured a senior mentor and a former Future17 student. Both participated in the QS Higher Education Summit that was most relevant to our geographical location: Asia Pacific in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Garnering inter-faculty support was on display with funding which came from the Vice Chancellor’s Office. Not long after that, some of our co-authors moderated a panel discussion and were later invited to be interviewed for a cover story in QS Insights magazine.
Learning Outcomes (LO): Future17 Course at a Single University in the Consortium.
List of Future17 Mentors in the Single University in the Consortium. a
Each mentor from this university is assigned to one Future17 project per intake, with all mentors spread across the consortium of 14 universities.
Co-author team.
Future17 learning outcomes are tailored by each consortium member university, yet all relate to essential skills for sustainable development, which Parola et al. (2022) emphasize as empathy, transformative thinking, and cross-cultural competence in real organizations. Future17 is an example of embedding the SDGs in curricula and meets the UN mandate of the United Nations Academic Impact and PRME. Interdisciplinary thinking aids in addressing complex, real-world problems and instructional design supports this approach. We present evidence that the learning outcomes at a single university (see Table 3 from a previous section) can leave future leaders equipped to tackle “grand challenges” and were designed within interdisciplinary approach (LO1, LO2, LO3) with organizational complexity (LO1, LO4, LO5) and the development of multicultural skills (LO5). In the next sections, we present evidence as empirical insights from our reflections and finally, we discuss how George et al.’s (2016) conceptual framework may be advanced.
Analytical Method
To examine Future17 within our conceptual framework, we chose an analytical method for the authorial team to systematically reflect on its approach and delivery in the context of “grand challenges” over the course of three Future17 intakes between January 2022 and December 2024 (see Table 2). We designed questions to elicit how Future17 addresses “grand challenges” (see Table 5) which resulted in thematic evidence for the dimensions of SDGs (see Table 6). Textured, diverse viewpoints within the experiential teaching and mentorship roles we held legitimize the insights gained from this situated research context (Hibbert et al., 2014). Our reflexive relational practice was similar to that of action research (Ripamonti et al., 2016), with clear theory-driven probing to identify themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and combat the types of subjective analytical outcome to which reflective techniques are prone.
Questions for the Authorial Team to Elicit How Future17 Addresses Grand Challenges.
Source. Adapted From George et al. (2016).
Proposed Attributes of SDGs as Grand Challenges in Management Education.
The empirical insights presented in the following section were prompted by questions to elicit how Future17 addresses “grand challenges,” as adapted from George et al. (2016) (see Table 5). To reflect on the perspectives of all three project stakeholders—students, mentors, and partners—we posed questions as part of three types of process. First, articulating and participating in “grand challenges” included actor needs and aspirations (see definition in Table 5). As mentors, we compared each other’s experiences of students and partners observed across projects and cohorts. Following George et al. (2016), we compared the societal barriers, institutional contexts, coordinating architectures, and reinforcing mechanisms.
Empirical Insights
Following the theory-driven approach we adopted (Braun & Clarke, 2006), the reflections gained from questions to prompt critical reflections (Table 5) led to insights which we present as proposed attributes of SDGs as “grand challenges” that we developed using George et al.’s (2016) framework (see Table 6).
Interdisciplinary Approaches
Interdisciplinary approaches involve integrating social and environmental concepts across academic disciplines. Figure A1 provides a summary of three Future17 project examples. Additional examples are available on the University of Exeter website. In one project, students worked with a partner on a single-use plastic waste problem in India. The team included students from public administration, environmental science, design studies, development studies, global studies, and law. The team developed a plan that engaged stakeholders, implemented loyalty programs, and fostered a community of recycling champions in a specific location. Their interdisciplinary collaboration resulted in a comprehensive solution that reduced plastic waste while creating business opportunities and value for all stakeholders. Their solution aimed to significantly reduce plastic bottle usage by extending product lifecycles and finding value in end-of-life options. Throughout the process, the students ensured compliance with local legal requirements and leveraged variation in regulatory frameworks across Indian provinces. The following reflection from the project mentor underscores the value of interdisciplinary collaboration:
For the plastic waste reduction project, students contributed ideas from their diverse disciplines and local experiences in their local countries, i.e., South Africa, Egypt, and New Zealand. None of the students were from the plastic industry or chemical engineering. Yet, the depth of analysis and robust solutions presented to the business partner were robust and actionable to add significant value for stakeholders. It is the interdisciplinary collaborations that yielded the final solution that pleasantly surprised the business partner for its relevance and scalability across major urban centers. (Academic 2)
The first and usually most formidable task of mentors is to assess a project’s scope and deliverables within the given timeframe and with available resources. Mentors’ diverse backgrounds allow them to bring fresh perspectives and objectively evaluate a project’s magnitude. Although mentors are assigned based on a brief, the main domain of the challenge may differ from their expertise. Their diverse academic backgrounds enrich projects by showing the benefits and drawbacks of various approaches. Mentors play a crucial role in engaging with partner organizations from an interdisciplinary perspective before and during the project, while also guiding the multidisciplinary team to complete a project within the 8-week program. The following observations by a mentor and a program leader position interdisciplinarity as an essential feature of the Future17 program.
I participated as a mentor in a project focused on SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 4 (Quality Education). Our client was a Singapore-based company. The project’s goal was to map ESG (environmental, social, and governance) factors to attract investors to their meat alternative products, aiming to disrupt traditional food manufacturers. Our diverse team consisted of six students: three pursuing bachelor’s degrees, two working on master’s degrees, and one PhD candidate. The team members were internationally distributed, with two based in South Africa, two in Italy, and two in New Zealand. (Academic 1) Interdisciplinarity sits at the heart of Future17. Students, academic mentors, projects within organizations, and the program’s leadership teams must start with an awareness of the breadth of disciplines addressed by a project and build interdisciplinary knowledge through project deliverables—this may be tacitly covered by a typical university’s curriculum but almost never in real-world projects at this scale. Much like a team of professionals on a project in industry, most teams comprise quantitative, communication, scientific, linguistic etc. specialists working together towards a stated goal. (Academic Program Manager 2)
Organizational Complexity
Organizational complexity requires implementation of multi-level systems to manage organizational resources. Projects include organizations of vastly different sizes, from agile start-ups to large, established institutions with embedded projects. A complex project was undertaken to develop a fundraising strategy and identify potential sponsors for a Pakistani university aiming to empower women through technology and improve their employability. This initiative addressed the challenges many Pakistani women face in accessing education, economic opportunities, and political empowerment. The project team’s composition reflected a diverse range of academic levels and institutions, including PhD students from a university in the Middle East, postgraduate students from South Africa, and undergraduates from the consortium member university. This multi-level structure introduced an unspoken respect for authority, with bachelor students potentially deferring to doctoral candidates, adding a layer of interpersonal dynamics to manage. The project also navigated various organizational hierarchies, including deans, professors, research fellows, and professional teaching fellows. Differences in hierarchical control and power were evident both formally and informally. For example, one mentor clearly spoke with a larger power distance to students than did another mentor from a different region.
Complexity was further compounded by the involvement of 13 universities, each with their own cultural, geopolitical, and regulatory landscapes. Administrative challenges included aligning different timelines for course approval and deciding between credit versus non-credit and graded versus non-graded options:
Launching a program spanning 13 universities across 8 time zones and 11 countries, involving three academic levels, hundreds of partner organizations, and real-world projects aimed at solving the United Nations SDGs seemed like a daunting challenge with slim odds of success. I think what draws students is their resonance with the aim of the SDGs. Project completion I’d say comes from the intrinsic motivation of both students and mentors, driven by their desire to support partner organizations and address global sustainability issues—lots of goodwill creates tolerance and patience that allows students to harness the value of their diverse perspectives. Students and mentors alike frequently expressed their enthusiasm for making a positive impact. (Academic 1) The partner organizations could be at various stages in their business life cycle. They vary in their purpose, ranging from for-profit enterprises to charities. It is this variety of partners and teams of students from different levels of university education that makes the project unique. The complexity is evident in the numerous relationships between different hierarchical levels among students, mentors, and business partners. Despite these differences, the agility of the student teams in understanding the business context and providing insightful and actionable solutions is highly commendable. (Academic 2)
The diverse nature of potential partner organizations across corporate, government, and non-profit sectors required considerable time and empathy for perspectives to gain contextual understanding. Scheduling meetings was complex not only because of participants’ availability spanning 4 to 5 time zones, but because each participant had unique expectations for their availability. For example, there was variation in what were considered “normal” working hours, or periods of the day (or week) reserved for family time, leisure, or religious activities. Empathy was gained through scheduling conversations, as availability comments often revealed other commitments that showed participants’ diversity. In one instance, there was a Future17 project designed to provide a roadmap for empowering women through technology in Pakistan’s unique context, which involved discussions of meeting schedules—both for the project and the Future17 team itself. Project outputs included free educational training resources, propositions for sponsor organizations, marketing materials, and implementation plans.
Multicultural Skills
Multicultural skills provide the ability to communicate and organize according to the diverse interests of stakeholders across various global localities. Future17 projects build cross-cultural competence, which stems from overcoming the challenges of the diverse backgrounds of participants. Students hail from various countries, bringing a rich tapestry of cultural differences that encompass religious practices, work ethics, time orientations, and family values. Practical issues such as scheduling across multiple time zones—with some team members separated by as many as 11 hr—require not just a logistical solution, but also a respect for interpreted differences of time. For instance, “being late” may mean just 5 min in some cultures while for others 20 min is still “not late.” Further, an apology for lateness is open to interpretation and loaded with different meanings for the receiver. Religious observances further complicate coordination, as Muslim students prefer to have Fridays off while Christian students observe Sundays. In another instance, Ramadan overlapped with some projects and added another layer of complexity with sensitivity to prayer times and fasting schedules.
Socioeconomic disparities among participants also play a role, with some students reporting limited Wi-Fi access or the need to care for family members, highlighting differences in resource availability and familial responsibilities. These factors may impact not only logistics but also how students approach the project itself. Cultural interpretations of concepts like “mistakes” (as learning opportunities or something to conceal), expectations of teachers and students (prescriptive vs. facilitative, initiative-taking vs. instruction-following), and norms of respectful communication vary widely among team members and partner organizations. These authentic cultural differences are evident in the lived experience of project teams, as observed by an academic mentor:
Students coming from different countries and religious backgrounds needed to respect diverse values and worldviews to collaborate professionally on the project; they had to adjust their meeting times, ensure active participation and contributions by each participant. Meeting times had to be adjusted to accommodate a student’s “namaz” [Islamic prayer] time while another could not join on Sunday morning. Yet another student had to care for a sick family member. It is working with each other respectfully to complete the project that made the experience unique in developing multicultural capabilities essential for a 21st century workplace. (Academic 2)
Moreover, a project’s context-specific solutions may pose unique challenges when applied across diverse cultural settings. To navigate these multifaceted issues successfully, teams must cultivate a high degree of cultural competence, fostering an environment of mutual respect, tolerance, and accommodation. This includes understanding and appreciating the varying levels of contribution each member can make, given their personal circumstances. The need to address this cultural complexity is highlighted by a senior program manager:
Students must understand their strengths and weaknesses from a cultural perspective to improve their teamwork. This by itself is a challenge for any group, let alone when constrained by a 10-week timeframe with members operating in 4–5 time zones. To prepare students, we offer bespoke intercultural competency training, with theoretical foundations, through the program’s custom-designed induction platform led by academic and industry experts. (Academic Program Manager 2)
Implementation and Best Practice
As all the authors have been mentors on projects in various parts of the world, we can offer some “best practice” advice to other academics and universities. First, the benefits of a team with diverse perspectives take time to realize. Patience is required in building a team culture, which does not occur swiftly or with a sense of ease. Building a cohesive and effective team by valuing each member’s unique background and resourcefulness is a first step. A preliminary goal is to create a safe and inclusive environment where all participants, regardless of their cultural and educational backgrounds, feel valued and free to share their ideas. Regular communication is key to the team’s continued progress. This means staying in regular contact with team members to monitor their progress and offering support whenever needed to ensure that the project goals are achieved. These implementation challenges are reflected in the experience of a senior program manager:
As a credit-bearing academic offering, Future17 is both highly complex because of its stakeholders but also because it demands the continuous attention of a broader range of academic and professional services staff than any other equivalent university module. With the addition of more universities and project partners, mitigating an increasing diversity of educational practices added complexity. We simplified and streamlined delivery wherever possible, to maintain the delicate balance between practicality and upholding academic rigor that meets diverse global standards for quality education. (Academic Program Manager 2)
Although coordinating meeting times across time zones for students, mentors, and partners may seem simple, it requires considerable effort. Understanding the cultural complexities of daily work routines and communicating respectfully about accommodating religious schedules is a key skill. Project scoping should receive the mentor’s attention early in the 8-week program, as students are inexperienced in assessing the tasks required to define project deliverables. As the global coordinator, the University of Exeter plays a key role in matching mentor expertise with the project deliverables defined by the partners. Students must keep detailed records of their meetings, with mentors doing this in their own way, to track progress throughout the project period. In addition, some projects may be more complex, or some students may be under-contributing, requiring mentors to take a more proactive role in supporting the student team. Occasionally, one mentor may not contribute adequately, placing an additional burden on the other mentors.
Academic leads are the point of contact between the Future17 headquarters and each consortium member university. Academic leads should engage widely with university colleagues early on because decisions require committee consideration and may pass through several approval checkpoints within the university internal administrative process. After final approvals, academic leads require broad institutional support to promote Future17 as a meaningful program to attract time-constrained academic mentors. Engaging with deans, heads of school, and marketing teams is crucial. The student selection process should prioritize interest in sustainability and the potential to engage adequately in complex, interdisciplinary projects—in this context, traditional metrics like a student’s grade point average are less important. In practice this should ideally involve an expression of interest (EOI) process to discern a shortlist, with brief follow-up interviews ahead of final selection decisions. Evaluating students’ interest in sustainability and the potential to adequately engage in the program inevitably has some subjective elements. However, we have learned that it is possible to do this effectively by asking students to explain in their EOI why they would like to enroll in the program; why they are interested in the UN SDGs; the approach they would take to communicating and collaborating effectively in a diverse team environment; the sort of leader they wish to be; and a self-assessment of their analytical, creativity, and critical thinking skills. Interviews with short-listed students focus on eliciting more detail and substantiating their interest in sustainability and the UN SDGs, and potential to collaborate adequately through a scenario-based question which outlines the reality of collaborating with a group of peers across multiple time-zones, a mix of cultural and disciplinary backgrounds, while working on an 8-week project with a live “client” on a sustainability challenge from anywhere in the world.
Academic leads are responsible for setting clear expectations for students and academic mentors, which requires professionalism combined with both cross-cultural competences. They should communicate assessment requirements, including written submissions and oral presentations, in alignment with local university policies. A rigorous moderation process ensures that marks comply with institutional standards. The critical role played by the academic leads is articulated by a senior program manager:
A challenge distinctive to the role of academic leads is managing academic mentor expectations. The very best academic mentors have the ability to engage with students and projects outside of their disciplinary area. In most cases, the academic mentor’s disciplinary expertise is not neatly aligned with the project specifications. Academic leads must frame this at the outset as an advantage: the more diversity of thought that can be synthesized throughout each project, the better. Because projects are student led, multiple views arise. Mentors should be encouraged to bridge views, not take over. It is a fine balance between acting as mentors and not crossing into a more formal supervisor or teacher role. (Academic Program Manager 2)
Discussion
The question we sought to answer was: How does the Future17 program offer a mode of delivery in which management education is uniquely placed to develop leaders that address the UN SDGs as “grand challenges”? Building on George et al.’s (2016) conceptual framework, we have reflected on how the Future17 program addresses the SDGs as “grand challenges.” Our study contributes to what we know about addressing “grand challenges” by articulating the interplay between students, academic mentors and partners. We found that the learning outcomes at a single university can equip future leaders to tackle “grand challenges” when they are designed with an interdisciplinary approach, leverage organizational complexity within the university ecosystem and aim to develop multicultural skills. In this section, we elaborate on these insights and discuss practical implications, including difficulties we encountered.
Interdisciplinary approaches uniquely complement the skill sets of students across management education, engineering, science and the humanities. Distinctively, commerce students study organizational systems and management tools to bridge diversity. Comparatively, students in other faculties are more likely to generate technical solutions. Enhancing interdisciplinary synergies can lead to demonstrable effectiveness, benefiting both management and other students, such as those from other faculties embracing a virtuous circle of collaboration and innovation. In contrast, conventional study programs involve scholars from disparate faculties that face significant constraints within academic structures that often prioritize incremental, discipline-specific knowledge development over interdisciplinary approaches to real-world problems.
Organizational complexity within the Future17 approach draws on the repository of management education scholars and students which complement the capabilities in other faculties (De Vos et al., 2024). Our management students are well-suited to handling organizational complexity because courses in their curricula, which emphasize the social and behavioral problems that impede SDG progress. For example, on SDG 13 Climate Action, the IPCC (2022) noted that the communication of climate science to diverse stakeholders involves “. . . complex interactions between formal and informal knowledge that cannot be bridged by better science or better predictions but require social and culturally mediated processes of engagement” (p. 202). Management courses in typical commerce degrees explore the complex interplay between managerial decision making (influenced by individual values, organizational directives, and institutions), organizational capabilities (across businesses, non-profits, and governments), and societal outcomes (Dorado et al., 2022). Such an approach equips management students with frameworks suited to navigating uncertainty in complex, multi-stakeholder projects aimed at addressing global challenges.
Multicultural skills cultivated in most Future17 projects are essential to ensure the global solutions required to achieve the SDGs. Management scholars teach a host of concepts to impart cross-cultural competence within the complexities of real-world challenges, including managing uncertainty, reconciling diverse perspectives, and reaching compromise. As such, commerce students possess knowledge of tools and frameworks that are valuable in understanding the combined political, economic, social, and legal context for a project. This ability to understand and work within various contexts is paramount, as emphasized in the Future 17 handbook, which highlights the importance of contextual understanding to support the achievement of SDGs.
Second, our study contributes to developing what George et al. (2016) label “coordinating architectures” as a distinctive capability of the university ecosystem. We found that “coordinating architectures” are orchestrated by key staff responsible for implementing the Future17 program—capabilities that are unique to the role of the academic program managers. Further, while the broader university environment provides the coordinating architecture for organizing the Future17 program, its successful implementation relies on the ability of academic program managers and mentor scholars to create learning outcomes, credit and incentives for voluntary effort that aligns with the diverse aspirations of stakeholders. As such, we partly fill a gap in what Harley and Fleming (2021) lament as the ignorance of elite management journals to face the major problems for humanity. Related to this is the third contribution from our study, stated as practical implications for the scoping and delivery of SDG projects.
Practical Implications
Management education scholars are uniquely positioned to develop the human capital needed to address these challenges, as graduates of higher education programs often occupy key managerial decision-making roles across various sectors. Future17 program participants, including students, mentors, and partners, engage in various activities (Figure 4). Central to every SDG project are the activities of project scoping and deliverables. Interactions between students and partners (01) during project scoping were as rewarding as they were time consuming and emotionally taxing for all participants. Further, projects that were perceived as more complex meant a longer period was needed to settle on project deliverables that were suitably matched with students’ capabilities. We found that mentors and partners (02) benefit from convening independently of students, particularly in the project scoping phase. The pace of discussion on analysis methods, reporting types, data visualization and modeling is quicker without students interrupting the flow of dialogue as partners articulate real-world stakeholders’ power and interests in the project. This practice is not intended to exclude students but rather acknowledges the broader and more extensive life experiences that mentors and partners bring as compared to students. Additionally, we observed that mentors and students benefit from independent meetings, which allow for focused discussions on topics such as academic credit, employability, CV considerations, and other more specific issues that are typically of concern to academics and students.
Future17 project scoping and deliverables: practical guidance for mentors, students and partners.
The time constraints inherent in the Future17 program underscore the crucial importance of project scoping and the formulation of deliverables (see Figure 5). Our findings indicate that the scoping process involved refining the initial deliverables proposed by partners, a task complicated by the challenges of identifying relevant information sources in regions and countries beyond a student’s primary area of study. Additionally, achieving alignment with the ethical protocols across the university consortium and accepted business practices presented further complexity.
Implementation timeline for project scoping and deliverables.
The implementation of the Future17 program presented several challenges that highlighted risks that require proactive mitigation. A primary concern was the handling of sensitive commercial data, which may not be subject to the comprehensive ethics approval processes typically enforced by universities. Mentors, especially those who are research-active, have a role to be vigilant in protecting the data and interests of partners. Variations between university and across industry standards regarding data protection and ethical considerations necessitate clear guidance from the Future17 Handbook (The University of Exeter and Quacquarelli Symonds, 2023). Reputational risks can come from differing levels of institutional prioritization. Some universities engage with Future17 to attract students, others for academic credit, and some as an extracurricular initiative. Time constraints faced by both university staff and students can mean Future17 activities are deprioritized, potentially compromising the quality of program outputs. Finally, online-only collaboration adds complexity to cross-cultural communication as the absence of non-verbal cues teamwork and mutual understanding can hinder effective communication.
To mitigate these risks, robust governance structures, clearly defined roles, and mechanisms for managing diverse stakeholder interests are essential. Here, stakeholder diversity management concepts are instructive (Freeman, 1984; Mahajan et al., 2023). Strengthening governance and communication within the program is a key strategy, with the Future17 Program Board convening monthly to ensure structured oversight, while Academic Leads meet fortnightly to facilitate continuous program improvements. Structured training initiatives, such as formal induction and an intercultural communication workshop, are modeled on best practices from the United Nations. Future17 student alumni’s involvement as speakers for induction sessions worked well because students relate well to other students.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The limitations of this study are conceptual, methodological and empirical. The definition of complexity could be explored further to cover the complex social roles among participants, for instance, the hierarchical dynamics of positional status within the Future17 project teams, and any socio-economic disparities (cf. King et al., 2023). Subjectivity in ethnographic techniques meant our author team may have confirmed findings without triangulation; however, we countered the likelihood of this pitfall by deploying practices for increasing the robustness of our reflections and their insights (Hibbert, 2013; Hibbert et al., 2014). Empirically, our case was limited to relationships involving only one of the universities in the Future17 consortium. These limitations point to future research directions that may corroborate our findings and provide alternative perspectives. First, case studies of other universities in the consortium could be selected to study dissimilar contexts. For example, studying universities with contrasting socioeconomic and geopolitical situations may build on the insights developed in this study. Second, surveys of students, mentors, and partners either across the consortium, within a selection of universities or at a single university will corroborate, build on, or challenge the insights provided here. Finally, a key element of the program is the central organizational team, which is comprised of representatives of the University of Exeter and QS. Better understanding of the delivery of Future17 projects from their perspective, and how existing theory informs best practice approaches in the context of such a truly global program, has the potential to drive enhanced education innovation across the consortium.
Conclusion
The Future17 education initiative creates a virtuous cycle that attracts students, advances the 17 SDGs and achieves meaningful learning outcomes that exemplify “grand challenges.” The rapid growth in the number of Future17 consortium members and interest from further afield, corroborated by observations of student satisfaction, partner testimonials and shared experience among academic mentors, demonstrates success. Drawing inspiration from George et al.’s (2016) framework, we have shown how the Future17 program commits organizational resources that support interdisciplinary approaches to solving SDGs as “grand challenges.” Future17 overcomes resource constraints by adopting a pluralistic understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of organizational resource commitments. Future17 learning outcomes represent a significant movement for management education to fill an interdisciplinary gap lamented by many scholars in preparing students to address “grand challenges.”
Footnotes
Appendix
Author Contributions
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
