This thesis delves into the pivotal role of engineering education in equipping students to tackle the challenges posed by climate change. Despite widespread efforts in higher education institutions, particularly in engineering, to incorporate education for sustainable development (ESD), effectiveness often falls short, leading to a regression to previous norms. Moreover, there is a dearth of literature on the implementation of ESD in applied sciences (AS) institutions, compounding the issue. This study focuses on the AS Faculty at TU Delft, which, despite ambitious climate goals, has a low percentage of courses addressing sustainability. The emphasis is on a systemic approach to ESD implementation, with the aim of providing recommendations for the educational portfolio of the Climate Action Plan of the AS Faculty of TU Delft.

The study begins with an extensive literature review on ESD implementation and systemic change within higher (engineering) education institutions (HE(E)Is). Findings elucidate specific strategies, barriers, drivers, and uncertainty factors, emphasizing the significance of context and culture. Two case studies on universities of applied sciences, NHL Stenden and Van Hall Larenstein, are conducted to contextualize theoretical insights within the AS Faculty at TU Delft. These case studies provide real-life examples of systemic ESD implementation, highlighting associated challenges and successes.

Subsequently, the AS Faculty of TU Delft is investigated through interviews with stakeholders relevant to ESD implementation. The exploration reveals engagement in both top-down and bottom-up initiatives, such as modifications in the Master program in Chemical Engineering and the implementation of the Green Thread initiative. The faculty has established a Climate Action Team to devise a Climate Action plan, including an educational portfolio, drawing insights from the research conducted.

Twelve influential thematic variables and their associated barriers, drivers, and uncertainty factors are identified through interviews. A focus group SWOT analysis further explores these variables, leading to the development of five strategies (ST1 to ST5) aimed at structuring the education portfolio of the AS Climate Action Plan. These strategies address change direction, context and culture, planning and preparation, design and implementation, and maintaining momentum and sustaining change.

The study concludes by recommending continuous evaluation of the proposed strategies and further exploration of outcomes related to the Climate Action Plan. It acts as a catalyst for discussions within the faculty, promoting broader conversations with the potential to positively impact the AS community.

The flood protection system in the Dutch Delta has to be adapted to accommodate the rising sea levels. When creating potential solutions, it is important to assess their social feasibility. An interesting aspect is the potential difference in opinion between different generations as there is an uneven distribution of the responsibility and impacts of sea level rise amongst generations. This led to the following research question: “What is the social feasibility of the solution directions for sea level rise amongst different generations in the municipality of Rotterdam?”. The solution directions are: protect, seaward, move along, and a combination of these.

This was researched by an explorative, qualitative research design. First, social feasibility was conceptualised through adapting the framework of Feitelson and Salomon. Secondly, the social feasibility amongst citizens of two age categories (16-30 and 60+) was assessed by interviewing them. After analysing the interviews, the conceptual framework was adapted to better fit the results. Finally, the academic and social implications of the findings were assessed.

The findings indicate that all discussed solutions are socially feasible. Of the three solution directions, most interviewees preferred the protect strategy, followed by seaward and move along. However, almost all interviewees preferred the combination of the solution directions. Even though each solution is thus socially feasible, there is an important precondition for a solution to sea level rise; namely, that there is a clear plan for how the new situation is going to look including the technical, financial, environmental and otherwise important aspects.

Regarding generational differences, the 60+ group on average dislikes the move along direction, whereas this is relatively popular in the 16-30 year group. Furthermore, interviewees in the 16-30 group graded all solutions relatively close together, whilst the 60+ group allocated varying grades. No difference in arguments was found and it is thus likely that citizens held different weights to different aspects.

The final conceptual framework shows that social feasibility is directly influenced by the perception of climate change and sea level rise, the perceived effectiveness of measures, and the perceived distribution of benefits and costs (nature, financial aspects, availability of land, maintainability, construction time, hinder to industry, novelty of solution, need for migration, (inter)national cooperation, ethical aspects, and positive possibilities). These are indirectly influenced by previous knowledge and demographic factors of citizens; the suggested mitigation measure and how this is communicated; and interest groups that spread information about potential solutions.

Social enterprises play a significant role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Measuring the social impact of social enterprises presents several challenges, including the complexity of social issues, the need for standardized metrics, and the limited resources available. Obtaining funding is crucial for social enterprises to fulfill their mission. When applying for funding, they often have to report on the social impact they generate, as it is an essential part of the value they create. Another difficulty is that social impact is experienced differently by various actors. The research, therefore, adopts an exploratory approach to understand how funders and social enterprises perceive the impact assessment, particularly for those contributing to SDG 3. Thus, the central question of this research is 'How are funders and social enterprises aligned in measuring social impact on SDG3?'.
This research was conducted in partnership with Unifix Care. Unifix Care is a social enterprise whose mission is to improve access to safe surgical care in Sub-Saharan Africa. The findings presented were derived from a review of the literature, interview rounds, and a survey. The first round of interviews were exploratory interviews with general impact funders. The second round consisted of interviews with social enterprises contributing to SDG and funders funding these social enterprises. The survey aimed to validate statements based on literature and interviews and to give an idea of the data funders and social enterprises use some impact indicators.
A finding of this research is that the change in how the Theory of Change is used, from an internal tool to an external accountability mechanism, indicates a misalignment between funders and social enterprises. While funders may demand accountability, social enterprises initially used it for internal improvement. This shift suggests a divergence in how both parties perceive and utilize this tool for measuring social impact. Social enterprises' power imbalance and dependency on funders can lead to a misalignment in measuring social impact. Contributing to this is the fact that aligning the mission of social enterprises with the strategic goals of funders is considered very important.
A subsequent finding is that there could be a reporting difference between easier-to-measure KPIs from the Theory of Change (input, activity, output) and harder-to-measure KPIs more aligned with the overall goal (outcome and impact). The survey results indicated a mild divergence in opinions between funders and social enterprises on the priority of measuring input, activity, and output indicators versus outcome and impact indicators. Social enterprises were somewhat in favor, whereas funders were somewhat opposed. In terms of quantifying outcome and impact indicators, a simple, state-of-the-art calculation was generally adequate for most social enterprises, in contrast to the preferences of funders. These findings could result in the miscalculation of social impact generated by social enterprises. For this, it is necessary to bring back the Theory of Change as an integrated framework.
Another finding is that both social enterprises and funders focus more on a social enterprise's positive rather than negative impacts. Given that every social enterprise likely has some adverse effects, these should be acknowledged to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the overall positive social impact. Additionally, it is found that the inconsistency in defining 'impact investors' and the varied interpretation of 'impact first' approaches reflect a lack of uniformity in how social impact is perceived and measured. This variability can lead to challenges in aligning the measurement approaches of funders and social enterprises.
The main limitations of this study are related to the small survey sample size, which only provides an indication. More research is needed to draw definitive conclusions. Another limitation is the selection and categorization of indicators in the survey; an attempt was made to do this as generically as possible. However, future research would benefit from validating this selection and categorization by multiple experts.
The following recommendations aim to foster effective collaborations between funders and social enterprises, enhancing transparency and accountability in social impact measurement. A publicly accessible database should be created to share the social impact results of social enterprises. This will allow for establishing normal distributions and facilitate the assessment of the likelihood of success of similar interventions. Therefore, a portion of funding should be dedicated to monitoring the long-term impact of social enterprises. This enhances transparency and allows for a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of various investments in achieving social impact. Funders should also publicize the Theories of Change of the social enterprises in their portfolio. This transparency helps understand how the impact is achieved and mitigates the risk of 'impact washing.' The initiative for these recommendations, particularly the database and publication of Theories of Change, should come from the government or the actors funding the funders. They have the influence to drive more impact-focused decisions and support impact-driven social enterprises. Future studies should incorporate comparative cognitive mapping and game theory to understand better the preferences and incentives of funders and social enterprises. Additionally, using Agent-Based Modelling or System Dynamics with the EMA workbench could yield insights into the effectiveness of specific policies in a complex, uncertain environment.

Solving the world food problem, health, and sustainability issues have become principal objectives of modern biotechnology. With the help of genetic engineering, the DNA of micro-organisms can be altered to produce value-added products (e.g., enzymes, vitamins, and alternative proteins) efficiently and sustainably. There has been lots of research activity about public perception and acceptance of genetic engineering in the food industry during the last decades. The EU Regulations provide significant loopholes, and companies fear strong anti-genetically modified organisms (GMO) lobby due to early scandals to notably GMO plants and animals. Until now, most research groups studied the public perception of genetically modified animals (GMAs) and genetically modified plants (GMPs). However, the public perception towards genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) has not been studied intensively, while valuable products are hampered. This research explores public emotions and underlying ethical concerns towards GMMs in the dairy-based industry through literature research, semi-structured expert interviews, and online questionnaires. Experts in this field hypothesize that people look differently towards specific GMO products and that consumer acceptance rises when a clear benefit is given. Techno-ethical scenarios were created to study laypeople and to verify different propositions made by experts. Roeser (2018) argues that moral emotions can play an important role in judging the ethical aspects of risky technologies. We used the theoretical approach from Roeser (2018) as a guideline to offer concrete recommendations for further study and essential elements to consider for decision-making on GMM technology. From this research, it can be concluded that the opinions, as in other debates, do not seem to be polarized. The majority of the public feels optimistic about GMM products when it gives a clear benefit. The emotions point to ethical concerns that are most important for specific types of products and consumers. The negative emotions (fear, anger, powerlessness, irritation, and disgust) and positive emotions (interest, hope, joy, happiness, and surprise) link to awareness, trustworthiness, and autonomy to be essential for GMM product acceptance.

The manufacturing process, supply chain and consumption pattern of fashion impose high risks on the environment. Besides, the utilization of cheap labor in developing countries by Western fashion brands entails great concern about labor rights of sweatshop workers. To tackle the daunting sustainable issues in fashion industry, various nascent firms have utilized novel technologies to transform their production, supply chain, planning and marketing activities. However, the market size of sustainable clothes is still relatively small. As a matter of fact, consumers are supportive of sustainable clothes, but their positive attitude does not always turn into actual purchasing behavior. Prior research has shown that there is a discrepancy between people’s value and their action. No studies have used an objective rating system for sustainability attributes and calculated consumers’ willingness to pay for improvement in those ratings. My thesis aims to bridge this gap by studying how consumers trade off price against hypothetically constructed ratings of environmental and labor rights practices. 7 main variables representing information on clothes labels (price, country of origin, fiber content, washing instruction, drying instruction, environment rating, labor rights rating) and 12 background variables (including 6 sociodemographic, 3 spending habit and 3 attitudinal variables) were chosen for this project. A stated choice experiment was constructed to collect data from 123 people, and discrete choice modelling was employed to analyze the data. The results showed that 5 out of 7 main variables (price, fiber content, washing instruction, environment rating and labor rights rating) play a significant role in respondents’ choice. Consumers prefer lower price, pure cotton (vs mixed blend) and the option to use washing machine (vs washing by hand). Regarding the environment and labor rights attributes, higher ratings are preferred, and the preference for higher ratings follows the law of diminishing marginal utility. In the final model, 4 background variables including gender, country of residence, concern about sweatshops and skepticism of eco-labels were shown to moderate the effects of main variables. Women and residents in high-income countries are more sensitive to price. People who are more concerned about sweatshops attach a higher importance to labor rights rating, whereas people who are more skeptical of eco-labels care less about the it. A typical individual in our sample is willing to pay €12 to €36 more for 1-point improvement of either environment rating or labor rights rating. Consequently, sustainable fashion brands can deploy either of the following two strategies to enhance their sales: (1) charge this price premium without losing their market share or (2) keep the same price to gain more customers.