Moving from local to global: The examples of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Okanagan Charter

Abstract

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set forth 17 broad goals that we should pursue globally to ensure the health of the planet and of humankind. Within each goal, several targets are identified. This article explores the overarching framework of the SDGs as a guide to ensuring human and planetary health. The one goal, Goal #3: Global Health and Wellbeing was described in more detail. Simultaneous to the development of the SDGs, a health promotion framework, the Okanagan Charter, was launched. The Okanagan Charter similarly identifies the calls to action and principles that are the foundation of the work. This article explores briefly the origins of the Okanagan Charter and describes the study that was conducted to explore the implementation of the Charter at the first 10 campuses to sign on to the Charter. The findings identify that systems approaches require leadership and engaged champions, effective communication structures, dedicated resources, work across silos, and development of targets and measures to gauge progress; these structures are crucial for effective systems approaches to complex initiatives such as holistic health promotion strategies. The article concludes with a discussion about future directions for the crucial health promotion agenda.

Global challenges

The pandemic brought to the forefront the global impact that emergent and ongoing issues may have. Examples are many. Specifically, climate change is not contained to one geographic area; outbreaks such as measles and malaria can spread rapidly, and geopolitical unrest in one region impacts a tremendous number of countries. Water and food security require multiple solutions. One of the challenges that are connected inextricably to so many other issues is human and planetary health. Because there are many determinants to health (Dooris et al., 2021), a systems approach is necessary (Dooris et al., 2022).

The systems approach naturally includes consideration of the settings and environment surrounding people. Ensuring that the climate and environment promote good health requires thinking about sustainability. The link between health and sustainability has been made in multiple arenas (Dooris et al., 2021; World Health Organization, 2016). Orme and Dooris (2010) emphasized that connecting health, wellbeing, and sustainability agendas brings significant added value when working towards the goal of global health and wellbeing. According to Orme and Dooris (2010), health and sustainability are linked in the following ways:

(i) Firstly, the concept of sustainable development embraces environmental, social and economic dimensions and aspires to health-enhancing communities, societies and environments.

(ii) Secondly, it is widely recognized that health is determined by a range of environmental, social and economic influences and that the health of people, places and the planet are interdependent.

(iii) Thirdly, the causes and manifestations of unsustainable development and poor health are interrelated and frequently pose further interconnected challenges (p. 425).

Because of these close linkages, it seems beneficial to examine sustainability and health and wellbeing together. This examination is best framed through considering two impactful frames that can guide the work towards sustainability and towards good health and wellbeing. Firstly, the United Nations’ framework of the Sustainable Development Goals will be described and then the Okanagan Charter will be discussed in more detail.

Sustainable Development Goals

After considerable discussion and collaboration, leaders of the United Nations adopted Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This agenda included the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); these goals highlighted a set of priorities that can guide countries in their work to address the complex issues that the world is facing. Specifically, challenges include ‘ending poverty and hunger; protecting the planet from degradation and addressing climate change; ensuring that all people can enjoy prosperous, healthy and fulfilling lives; and fostering peaceful, just and inclusive societies free from fear and violence’ (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017, p. 5–6). Each of the goals have several targets and articulated indicators for each of the targets (SDG, n.d.). The targets are more specific than the commitments and principles of the Okanagan Charter.

However, both frameworks point to the higher education sector as being critical to health promotion work. As noted in the Okanagan Charter, one of the key SDG stakeholders whose role has been highly discussed since the development of the Agenda is the higher education sector. The vital role that universities play in societal wellbeing makes higher educational institutions important contributors to the achievement of SDGs. For example, universities not only search for solutions to challenges that arise due to climate disruption (Filho, 2010), but they also play a critical part in getting society ready to adapt to the effects of climate change by providing research and education on adaptation strategies (American College & University President’s Climate Commitment [ACUPCC], 2018). Zhou et al. (2020) claimed that the role of the universities is to teach ‘game-changers of the future’ (p. 88) who can operate in a way that contributes to creating a sustainable world. Other researchers stressed that universities have a twofold role, which manifests in adopting active policies that promote SDGs in all their activities, and increasing SDG awareness among different stakeholders, especially students (Blasco et al., 2021).

According to Ketlhoilwe et al. (2020), the role of universities in implementing SDGs is not only to achieve economic growth without endangering elements of the Agenda 2030 but also to create knowledge that can promote a sustainable future. The need for providing quality education that includes the elements of sustainability is stressed by many authors. In this regard, SDSN (2020) introduced the term ‘education for the SDGs’ (ESDGs), which is the education that provides individuals, regardless of their chosen profession, with the skills, abilities, and ways of thinking to address the challenges mentioned in the Agenda 2030 and to contribute to making a positive change in society.

The positive contribution to the achievement of the SDGs from universities is obvious, but it is also important to highlight that higher education institutions greatly benefit from focussing efforts on the SDGs and determining pathways forward to achieve the goals, targets, and indicators outlined in the document. There are many ways in which SDGs contribute to improving universities, such as the promotion of cooperation with new partners, creation of new sources of funding, provision of a framework that demonstrates the university’s impact, and creation of a globally acknowledged meaning of a responsible university (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017).

Many authors agree on the areas that universities should focus on when addressing SDGs. Zhou et al. (2020) stated that to embed SDGs at higher education institutions, universities should direct their efforts on research, education, governance and operations, and public engagement. Research is crucial to create policies and guidelines that encourage innovative teaching and effective university management to support SDGs (Zhou et al., 2020). Understanding the interactions among process, policy, and practice is essential to furthering the goals. SDSN Australia/Pacific (2017) claimed that to address sustainability through research, there is a need to promote SDGs as an important research subject at universities, support innovation for SDG solutions, and invest in research at the local and national levels. Korfgen et al. (2018) also highlighted that research that focuses on real-world problems and asks questions that have not been brought to attention before can help universities contribute to the achievement of SDGs.

Another dimension that Zhou et al. (2020) stressed as crucial to promoting SDGs at universities is education. Achievement of SDGs requires students’ critical thinking and self-reflection. Moreover, universities should expand distance learning offerings to make education accessible for everyone (Zhou et al., 2020). SDSN (2020) mentioned that it is critical to implement SDG activities that are based on real-world projects and address real-life problems. These activities can include the creation of ‘living labs’, hackathons, study exchanges, and entrepreneurship practices. Furthermore, universities should empower students by encouraging their participation in university governance, creating academic and vocational training directed at executing SDG solutions, and generating opportunities for individuals from developing countries to address problems related to the SDGs. Ketlhoilwe et al. (2020) highlighted the importance of including SDGs in the curriculum, which can take the form of introducing courses, modules, and training on sustainability literacy that can promote a positive shift in students’ mindsets and create a better foundation for future policies and practices. It is also important to stress that educational practices should not be directed exclusively at students. To ensure that SDGs are embedded in all university activities, leadership should promote the professional development of faculty members to raise their awareness of SDG-related topics (Ketlhoilwe et al., 2020).

Moreover, an area that is critical for addressing SDGs at universities is governance and operations (Zhou et al., 2020). Making sure that SDGs are a part of institutional culture is necessary for higher education to embed SDGs across all their activities. According to Murillo-Vargas, Hernan Gonzalez-Campo, and IcoBrath (2020), there must be ‘a structural change and a change in teachers’ vision, built by understanding what the university is and what it is for’ (p. 10). SDSN Australia/Pacific (2017) also mentioned that universities should align their structures and policies in accordance with the SDGs. They stressed that engaged leadership is one of the main factors, which helps facilitate a dialogue that encourages more stakeholders to participate in a discussion related to the SDGs. SDSN (2020) described how the change from centralized governance to an ecosystem allows the involvement of different parties in the conversation and gathers a community around a shared purpose, which can further the initiatives related to the SDGs.

Engaging different stakeholders is an essential factor that can help promote the need for the achievement of SDGs through universities (Zhou et al., 2020). SDSN (2020) defined ‘traditional’ students, university staff, participants of non-degree programs, partners in joint university initiatives, and community members as parties whose contributions are crucial for the achievement of SDGs. To involve more ‘traditional’ students, SDGs can be added to learning materials, assignments, as well as co-curricular, orientation, volunteering, student-led activities, and exchange programs and can be embedded in pages of the university website. To reach staff, universities can address SDGs in professional development programs, staff-oriented communications, and additional engagement activities. For students of non-degree programs, including information on SDGs in summer schools, MOOCs, language courses, professional development, and adult courses can lead to a stronger involvement of this group. Additionally, the organization of public events, performances, conferences, high-school extension programs, and exhibitions that address SDGs can help to reach more community members (SDSN, 2020). Ketlhoilwe et al. (2020) also described the importance of partnerships with potential employers, local and regional communities, research institutes, schools, and businesses who through joint efforts can help to prepare the next generation of sustainable development leaders, create a network of institutes that focus on solving sustainability-related issues, and initiate conferences that allow stakeholders to share the best SDG practices.

Collaboration as a success factor for the SDG achievement

The implementation of SDG-related practices in areas of research, education, governance, operations, and public engagement is critical. However, none of these practices will bring the desired outcomes without collaboration among different stakeholders. El-Jardali & Fadlallah, 2018 explained the need for engagement of different stakeholders through the interconnectedness of the SDGs. Although each SDG addresses a different area of human lives, a lack of progress on one goal hinders progress on others. This interrelationship creates the need for the involvement and collaboration of practitioners from different fields. The SDG website identifies the interrelatedness and highlights the relationship among all the goals.

Zhou et al. (2020) stated that to integrate SDGs in university activities, there should be a collaborative approach, which can manifest in strengthening cooperation with governments and communities. El-Jardali and Fadlallah (2018) agreed with that point but stressed that today the cooperation of universities with governments and communities is often short and unsustainable, which prevents each party from fully fulfilling their potential. The key steps that HEIs can undertake to strengthen the collaboration among these stakeholders include strengthening the science–policy interface, providing neutral platforms for cross-sectoral dialogue, supporting integrated and coherent policies and actions for SDGs, getting involved in the political process, strengthening transdisciplinary learning, and demonstrating a commitment to effective engagement (El-Jardali & Fadlallah, 2018; Zhou et al., 2020).

Neary and Osborne (2018) posited that collaboration is key to moving ‘beyond the research and teaching remit of the university’ (Neary & Osborne, 2018, p. 341). Higher education institutions need to engage with the wider public and other institutions, including working cooperatively with government, industry, and civil society. Hearing from multiple perspectives is critical to ensure we have a comprehensive understanding of the problem and we can create sustainable solutions for these complex issues. This contention aligns with the transformative vision described in the Okanagan Charter (2015): ‘Health promoting universities and colleges transform the health and sustainability of our current and future societies, strengthen communities and contribute to the wellbeing of people, places and the planet’ (p. 2).

Of particular relevance to this paper connecting the SDGs to the Okanagan Charter is Goal #3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages (SDG, n. d). The targets are measurable and include improving access to needed health-care services, reducing harm from environmental hazards, supporting research and development of vaccines and medicines, strengthening prevention and treatment of substance use, reducing premature mortality and infant mortality, and ending epidemics (SDG, n. d). The website also articulates indicators that will signify progress on achieving those targets. As mentioned previously, the interrelationships among the SDGs are featured prominently on the website. However, it was interesting to see what indicators and metrics were identified within Goal #3 as they are very much aligned with the medical needs of people. Other health promotion types of approaches such as constructing green spaces, ending food insecurity, improving health literacy, and addressing poverty are not mentioned visibly on the web page for Goal #3. Although the indicators are necessary goals, reducing maternal deaths during birth necessitates a wide ranging, multi-faceted approach.

The Okanagan Charter, developed at the same time as the UN’s SDGs, is not as detailed and does not have explicitly worded indicators. The following section examines the Okanagan Charter and its implementation at universities in Canada. Then, the two frameworks will be compared.

The development of the Okanagan Charter

There have been several iterations of a health and wellbeing charter that provides a framework for organizing healthy campus initiatives. The Ottawa Charter (World Health Organization, 1986) was developed in coordination with the World Health Organization. Subsequently, at the 2005 International Conference of Health Promoting Universities which was held in Edmonton, Alberta, the Edmonton Charter was crafted (World Health Organization, 2005). Then, a decade later, the 2015 International Conference on Health Promoting Universities & Colleges (VII International Congress) in Kelowna, British Columbia, was seen as an opportunity to build the next iteration of a health promotion framework. Champions, senior leaders, faculty, staff, and students who were connected to health and wellbeing efforts on campuses employed their collective expertise to develop the next charter. Collectively, through facilitation, dialogue, and interactive workshops, participants constructed a vision, calls to action, and principles for post-secondary education (PSE) institutions to promote wellbeing on their campuses (Okanagan Charter, 2015). Charter purposes are

1) guiding and inspiring action using a framework aligned with principles of Health Promoting Universities and Colleges; 2) generating dialogue and research that connects networks at all levels and that accelerates action; and 3) mobilizing action across sectors so that health is integrated in the policies and practices across organizations (Okanagan Charter, 2015, p. 3).

The two Calls to Action are ‘(1) Embed health [defined holistically] into all aspects of campus culture, across the administration, operations and academic mandates, and (2) Lead health promotion action and collaboration locally and globally’ (Okanagan Charter, 2015, p. 3).

The Okanagan Charter emphasizes a systems approach; many researchers contend that the Charter and its principles and calls to action provides great promise as a holistic framework to organize the wellbeing efforts on a campus (see Dooris et al., 2017; Newton et al., 2016). Several campuses that were involved in the development of the Charter were the initial signatories. The study (Squires & London, 2022) examined how initial stages of implementation of the Okanagan Charter were unfolding at the first 10 signatory campuses in Canada. The study and its findings are described below.

Methodology

In our qualitative case study, we interviewed key leaders at each of the 10 Canadian campuses that were the first to sign the Okanagan Charter. Through our networks and through website information, we contacted one to three possible participants at each campus. We conducted hour-long semi-structured interviews with each participant, transcribed the interviews, and analyzed the data; the interviews were our primary data source. In addition, we examined documents and information about their health and wellbeing initiatives and programs that were housed on their institutional websites. We then manually coded the data to identify themes and sub-themes.

Key findings

The most striking finding was the tremendous variability among campuses. Several campuses had heralded the signing of the Charter on their institutional websites, but there were no other references to actions or plans to actualize the commitments to the plan. This absence of public information about commitments was surprising because the formal signing required campuses to identify how they would meet the commitments and calls to action outlined in the Okanagan Charter. Other campuses had well-established processes and goals to help them achieve their stated commitments. The strengths of the front running campuses were mirrored by the limitations or weaknesses of the campuses that did not seem fully engaged. The following strengths of the leading campuses are helpful in considering what mechanisms need to be in place if campuses are going to be successful in a systems approach to health promotion.

Collaborative leadership

The most active campus had a strong model of leadership that supported the health promotion work to cross disciplinary boundaries and unite the work for the wellbeing of staff and faculty as well as students. Formal and informal leaders on campus as well as champions of health promotion all had a role to play in the work, and they had opportunities to connect a few times a year to discuss progress and set goals. It was especially important that the executive senior leaders were also fully supportive as they determined the priorities of the university. At the leading campuses, student leaders also played a crucial role in the health promotion work. For example, at one campus, student efforts resulted in the development of a food security office and there was a concerted effort to improve food security for students. Students were members of the collaborative leadership team and had opportunities to speak directly to senior executive leaders and champions on campus. It was evident in our discussions that the student leaders were very well respected, and they had had a tremendous influence on the health promotion work.

Communication

There were regular updates for the campus community, and there was a dedicated webpage that was updated as needed. The webpage highlighted specific programs and initiatives and had a link to a wellbeing framework. The framework described the wellbeing and health promotion work, identified the critical role of wellbeing, and outlined goals and targets that the whole campus was expected to achieve. Additionally, messages about the importance of the health promotion work were embedded in speeches to the campus community (such as convocation speeches and campus town halls), and the importance of health promotion was included in key documents such as the strategic plans; making health promotion a strategic priority for the campus was especially helpful. By elevating health promotion through inclusion in the strategic plan and a campus-wide framework document, the senior leadership team communicated their expectations that colleges and departments on campus would be required to contribute to meeting the goals and targets identified in the wellbeing framework.

Dedicated resources

At the most active campuses, the senior leaders ensured that financial and human resources supported the health promotion work. A dedicated director or coordinator steered the health promotion work and assisted with coordination and organization of the efforts. Some campuses had an office focused on wellbeing efforts; having a visible coordinating presence was essential in having a point of contact for those inside and outside of the organization who wanted to engage in health promotion work. On campuses that were struggling, those charged with moving forward on the commitments were often doing so ‘off the side of their desks’. Often, those responsible for the work were not identifiable to others inside or outside of the organization, making it extremely difficult to connect with someone associated with the Okanagan Charter on that campus.

Targets and goals

Leading campuses had well-articulated road maps to achieve goals and targets. These thoughtful goals were aligned with the commitments that the campus had made when they were signing on to the Charter. The goals were discoverable on their websites, and there were timelines attached to the achievement of the targets. Many of the goals were presented as SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound). Then, data were collected and progress was reported at regular intervals. The data also informed next steps and were essential in setting and revising targets and goals. The progress reports, the framework, and the targets and goals were centrally located in an easily discoverable webpage.

Joined-up and systems approaches

The most active campuses were focused on all campus members including staff, faculty, and students. While most campuses were concerned primarily with student wellbeing, the leading campuses included staff and faculty in their considerations. Student leaders were included in the health promotion leadership team, and staff and faculty leaders from multiple colleges and units on campus were also included in the team. On the struggling campuses, the only staff included were those who worked in student wellness centres or those who were the leaders with a student services portfolio. If faculty were part of the wellbeing leadership team, they were often connected to the health-related colleges.

Further, the leading campuses included the built environment in considering wellbeing. They often met with their community partners such as representatives from the city’s council in discussing transportation, food security, and housing security. Wellbeing was considered holistically. Aspirations to develop systems approaches and move from pockets of excellence to broad and far-reaching actions and initiatives that have a community (local, national, and international) impact are closely aligned with the aspirations of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. These goals are further described in the following section.

Future directions

Achieving the transformative vision outlined in the Okanagan Charter is fraught with challenges on many levels. Enhancing visibility of whole campus approaches and developing communication strategies that build better understanding of how all individuals and units can contribute to the goals of a healthy campus are necessary to engage everyone in the efforts. The siloed approaches to solving issues and to upholding the disciplinary focus in teaching and much of the research work need to be dismantled. Additionally, to build commitment for health promotion, campuses must construct a case illustrating how resources (human and financial) invested in wellbeing can have a positive impact on the teaching and research goals of the campuses (Dooris et al., 2017).

Moreover, institutions, communities, and research need to change the narrative of how we discuss and conceive of health. Illnesses and interventions are much more prominent in the research and literature, rather than promotion strategies and health forward types of actions and strategies (Dooris et al., 2017). However, promotion and prevention strategies require fewer resources than costly intervention and treatment strategies. If people stay healthier, fewer resources will be needed in care and treatment, freeing up more resources for promotion and prevention, thereby creating a positive cycle to invest in front-end approaches.

Higher education institutions, though, have a critical role to play in bolstering the health promotion agenda through our research and teaching agendas. For example, through our research, we can collect evidence of the positive impact of health promotion initiatives and the subsequent changes in health statistics and in attitudes towards health promotion work. Further, through our teaching mission, we can educate our students as the next leaders of our campuses and communities about the positive impacts of health promotion for society. By promoting awareness of the intersections of the many determinants of good health, we can further the sustainability, social justice, and inclusion goals; essentially, achieving a broad understanding of health promotion has an impact on many of the other SDGs in addition to advancement of global health and wellbeing.

Challenges

Several challenges remain in developing joined-up approaches on campuses and in evaluating the outcomes of healthy settings initiatives (Dooris et al., 2022). Firstly, determining the impact of health initiatives often requires time and longitudinal data is always complex to collect, especially when a large proportion of the members of campus, the undergraduate and graduate students, will leave the campus setting at the completion of their program. For example, promoting walkable and bike-friendly pathways is one health promotion strategy and the benefits of encouraging active lifestyles may extend throughout the students’ lifetimes. This type of data will not be effectively captured.

Secondly, determining what to measure and how we may measure it in meaningful ways is challenging. There are many types of population health statistics that could be gathered but what is most effective in communicating how health promotion efforts have had impact is very complex. Included in this challenge is that many health determinants are beyond the control of universities (Dooris et al., 2017). Determining the effectiveness of a single measure such as sexual health education campaigns can be extremely difficult. Furthermore, the best communication is easy to understand; and frequently, organizations rely on specific metrics to communicate progress. Communicating social impact and change in people’s attitudes are much more difficult to craft. The tendency then is to identify targets that will be more aligned with SMART goals, including timelines, specific outcomes, and measures that more easily communicated. The targets and indicators of the UN’s SDGs are examples of very defined population health metrics. For example, the targets include reducing the global maternal mortality ratio or halving the number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents; these statistics are easy to communicate. There is less clarity and articulation regarding the multi-faceted initiatives that could be part of the process or the types of health promotion work that could be considered as contributing to achieving those metrics such as improving access to maternal health programs.

Thirdly, health is intimately linked with so many other areas. The UN’s SDGs recognize the alignment and have highlighted the goals that are connected when reporting on events or projects (SDG, n.d.). However, campuses and funding agencies continue to have challenges with understanding how to recognize and reward strong transdisciplinary work. Although many campuses will speak about their interests in promoting transdisciplinarity, the processes can be inhibiting and cumbersome; additionally, the incentives and rewards (such as tenure and promotion) have not necessarily followed suit. Faculty are recognized more for achievement and developing expertise in a narrow field of research and may not be encouraged to engage in a broader approach. Faculty’s teaching assignments are similarly focused on disciplinary concepts. Furthermore, granting agencies have struggled with adjudicating transdisciplinary grant applications and understanding how the teams’ expertise will be leveraged to achieve the stated outcomes of the research. However, as Dooris (2022) pointed out:

a transdisciplinary approach to research is most likely to lead to innovation by focusing on synergy generated at the interface of different subject disciplines and that interprofessional approaches to learning and working are most likely to address societal needs and challenges. (p. 161)

Transdisciplinary approaches will support collective action and capitalize on multiple perspectives; these collaborative opportunities will more likely lead to innovative solutions to the complex global challenges and thereby work towards achieving the SDGs.

Discussion

Building towards a joined-up approach to health promotion will require further connection beyond individual campuses which have engaged leaders and have developed structures that are more effective for collaborative and transdisciplinary work. There are several possible actions to consider when attempting to galvanize our efforts and potentially connect the health promotion movement to the work involved in achieving the United Nation’s SDGs.

Campuses need to move beyond rhetoric and actively develop processes that support transdisciplinary research and reward collaborative efforts, both financially as well as in processes such as tenure and promotion. While many campuses advocate for interdisciplinary and collaborative work, promotion standards lag behind and promotion committees may not understand the scope of the researcher’s work if it is perceived as being too broad or not focused as narrowly as previous faculty members’ research has been. Moreover, campuses should actively develop mechanisms for connection across silos and colleges. Networking events and presentations, news bulletins, and informal gatherings are beneficial not only for early career researchers but also for established researchers trying to find a way to expand their research agenda into a transdisciplinary space. Campuses have the capacity to revise their own processes and structures including internal grant systems, but they can also advocate with federal and provincial or state funding agencies to support transdisciplinary research and remove barriers in the grant application process. Furthermore, we must invest in longitudinal research that can explore long-term impacts of specific health promotion initiatives or strategies.

Individual campuses can advocate for health promotion action on their campuses, including by encouraging leaders to sign the Okanagan Charter. If they want to understand how to articulate commitments and how to work towards those commitments, campuses can look to the health promotion leaders in their country or other countries for the successful strategies, structures, and processes. By learning from leading campuses locally and globally, they can develop a better designed roadmap for their health promotion work. Networks can also work towards developing a more prominent profile through presentations to academic audiences; engaging in more knowledge mobilization activities such as blogs, symposia, editorials, and other avenues; advocating for being included on national university bodies (such as national councils); and supporting researchers nationally and internationally through connecting them formally and informally.

There are also a series of existing health promotion networks around the world. By investigating the work of health promotion networks through associated websites, campus champions will be able to connect with other campuses who have previously invested in this work. Examples of networks include the Canadian Health Promoting Campuses Network and the United Kingdom Healthy Campuses Network. These networks meet regularly at their national and local levels and are further connected through the International Health Promoting Campuses Network. However, these networks are composed of faculty and staff who are engaged because of their deep interest in and passion for health and wellbeing. They are often engaging in this work from the ‘sides of their desks’. It will be incredibly important to continue those connections but exploring ways of working more closely together.

Campuses and networks potentially can become engaged in the broader, farther reaching health promotion efforts through the redevelopment work of the Charter. As described earlier, the Okanagan Charter was developed through a process that engaged researchers, students, faculty, staff, executive leaders, and campus champions drawn from multiple countries, as well as organizations including the World Health Organization to craft a framework and commitments for health promotion. This Charter was built on earlier iterations (the Ottawa Charter in 1986 and the Edmonton Charter in 2005); with the Okanagan Charter being developed in 2015, there is an opportunity in 2025 to continue that cycle and draw together champions and researchers from across the globe to participate in drafting the next version. The Okanagan Charter was built through active engagement of the participants via pre-conference surveys and a design lab approach during the conference. Recently, the World Health Organization published the Geneva Charter for Wellbeing which emphasized a sustainable and whole systems approach for human and planetary health. The Geneva Charter for Well-being (WHO, 2021) ‘underlines the urgency of creating sustainable “well-being societies,” committed to achieving equitable health now and for future generations without breaching ecological limits’ (p. 1).

One part of the discussion could focus on how to better constitute a global advocacy coalition to amplify the efforts of health and wellbeing. We could explore how to better connect with the United Nations and their work on the Sustainable Development Goals. The interrelationships especially between SDG #3 and the work of the Okanagan Charter could be considered. As the SDGs were developed with the timeline of 2030 as the target end date, key members of the organization are potentially beginning their work on next steps with the redevelopment of the goals or perhaps a completely revised structure and framework. Including key members of the health promotion networks in these discussions would be helpful for exploring how promotion and prevention strategies could figure more prominently in the next iteration of the goals document.

This incorporation of multiple perspectives could be influential in the development of meaningful indicators for progress against health promotion goals rather than a focus on population health statistics. The health promotion networks could leverage the experts from multiple disciplines who can contribute to the thoughtful development of a series of goals and accompanying tools and toolkits to support the collection of metrics and narratives that can measure progress in the health and wellbeing of our global community. There is tremendous potential in the higher education health promotion networks working collaboratively with the World Health Organization and the United Nations to amplify our efforts and build a global advocacy coalition rather than working as various organizations with similar goals in our own silos. We can model the necessary transdisciplinary, cross-organizational work that is critical for incorporating multiple perspectives and harnessing our collective strengths.

Conclusion

The pandemic amplified the issue of global health and wellbeing and highlighted how different local, national, and global communities do not have the same access to resources for health promotion nor access to the needed prevention and intervention supports such as health education and vaccines. As Dooris et al. (2021) posited, there is ‘an opportunity for higher education to use the disruptive impact of COVID-19 as a catalyst to “build back better” – harnessing its leadership to effect visionary change both within universities and in society as a whole’ (p. 307). Collaboratively, from a transdisciplinary and community-engaged perspective, we must work on systems approaches to achieve global health and wellbeing. As part of the overall goal, investment in health promotion strategies, structures, and initiatives are a crucial part of achieving better global health outcomes.