It is nearing the end of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014) (United Nations, 2011), an awareness raising campaign which “seeks to mobilize the educational resources of the world to help create a more sustainable future” (no page). The core mission of this UN program is “to integrate the principles, values and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning. This educational effort will encourage changes in behaviour that will create a more sustainable future in terms of environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society for present and future generations” (UNESCO, 2012, no page). As outlined by Hunting and Tilbury (2005), Education for Sustainable Development, or Education for Sustainability (‘EfS’) as it is more commonly known in Australia, attempts to transgress education about sustainable development, to motivate, equip and involve individuals and social groups in reflection and in making informed decisions and ways of working towards a more sustainable world. Underscored by the principles of critical theory and critical thinking skills, EfS “aims to go beyond individual behavior change and seeks to engage and empower people to implement systematic changes” (von der Heidt & Lamberton 2011, p. 773).

Yet to what extent is EfS - and the incorporation of sustainable development principles - actually occurring in higher education institutions, in pedagogy and in the tourism curricula we teach? This paper aims to address this question through an empirical analysis of the first-year curriculum in the Bachelor of Business (including the B. Business in Tourism Management) at a regional university in Australia. In many universities around the world, including Australia, tourism schools are often housed within business or management departments or faculties, with tourism curricula located within a business paradigm. As the traditional business school model is focused on industry-ready graduates and ‘core’ business skills which reflect and emphasise the dominant economic growth paradigm (Dredge et al 2010; Springett 2005; Tribe 2003), trying to incorporate the holistic principles of EfS can present a challenge.