The IDGs and Higher Education | Opportunities, Challenges & Avenues to Explore

Over the 15+ years I’ve spent working in sustainability, I developed a simple personal theory of change (ToC) related to tackling systemic problems at the root: when people reflect more and allow themselves to go deeper into their reflections, really connecting with their values, they tend to take on more sustainable behavior.

I’ve been looking for ways to bring this ToC into mainstream higher education for years. Unfortunately, it didn’t get much traction, as most people simply didn’t understand it. “What does deep reflection have to do with reducing CO2”?

It all started changing when I discovered and started using the Inner Development Goals (IDGs) language. Suddenly, people started listening, doors opened, and students were impacted.

The IDGs must be doing something right ??. But is that enough? And how transformative can the IDGs be for Higher Education?

I speak to tens of universities every single week. In this short blog post I want to outline where I currently stand, hoping to spark a debate, on opportunities, limits and what I feel we need to explore next.

Opportunities of the IDGs for Higher Education

Opportunity #1: Accelerating change through communication

For decades, people have been saying that change - especially when it comes to which skills students should prioritize - is much needed in higher education. The IDGs are accelerating this patch by providing a unifying language that bridges student, educator, and leadership priorities. Unlike previous initiatives, which often hit a ceiling, the IDGs resonate at (nearly) all levels, fostering alignment and systemic adoption. This narrative shift elevates inner development from a niche interest to a strategic imperative.

Opportunity #2: Alignment & connection

The IDGs create a shared language that brings previously disconnected actors together. Educators, students, and institutional leaders, who once worked in silos, now realize they are not alone. In fact, they’re part of a larger movement. This alignment not only bundles efforts: it creates momentum, turning isolated initiatives into tipping points for systemic change. We are, for example, starting the University Coalition for Student Inner Development to this purpose. Please consider joining us as a Community Champion through the website.

Opportunity #3: Education that resonates

Many students feel disconnected from their studies; they see studying merely as a means to an end, through a consumer’s lens: “Let me get a degree with minimal effort and a good-paying job”. True IDG-based education aligns closely with students’ hearts and immediate needs, making things relevant and personal to them. It equips students with practical skills like resilience, self-awareness, and values, which directly improve their daily lives and contribute to their wellbeing. This connection fosters greater engagement, as students see the direct benefits of inner development in managing stress, navigating uncertainty, and building meaningful careers and relationships.

Challenges

Yet, as powerful as those opportunities are, there are structural challenges too.

Challenge #1: IDG-washing or MacIDG(1)

IDGs are easy to understand and have mainstream appeal. One significant flipside is that universities might adopt the language of IDGs without making meaningful changes. Even worse, by rebranding existing initiatives under an IDG label, some feel they’ve done enough already and don’t need to go further. Needless to say, this can be an obstacle to the paradigm shift we need.

Challenge #2: Complexity and oversimplification

The IDGs did a phenomenal job summarizing the science around inner development into one framework. This can, however, lead to oversimplification, neglecting essential skills. At the same time, 23 skills divided across five dimensions can also be too much for students to fully embrace, leaving them wondering which of those should be prioritized and integrated into their curriculums and lives.

Challenge #3: Misaligned perceptions

To some, the term “inner development” carries connotations that feel esoteric and disconnected from the practical demands of higher education. This can lead to skepticism among stakeholders who prioritize measurable outcomes, like employability or technical skills. Without a clear understanding of its relevance, which goes beyond the obvious link with the UN SDGs, some educators and leaders may dismiss inner development as a secondary or non-essential focus.

Challenge #4: Competencies vs. character traits

The IDGs blur the line between competencies and character traits, raising questions about what can be taught versus what is inherently personal. While skills like active listening or critical thinking are teachable, traits like empathy or resilience often require deeper, experiential development. This distinction can make implementation challenging, as educators try to navigate how to foster traits that may not fit traditional teaching methods or assessment frameworks.

Avenues to explore

I’m definitely on the positive side of the potential transformative power of the IDGs ??. Yet, we need to take these challenges seriously. My mind’s not made up, so here are five open questions I think about a lot (very curious to hear your take on them!)

1. Developing quality standards: We need to find a way to avoid labeling all education as “IDGs” indiscriminately. Could we, perhaps, define clear benchmarks for how universities can integrate IDGs, ensuring meaningful adoption and avoiding superficial applications? Accreditation maybe even?
2. Reducing complexity: Should we ‘prioritize’ among the IDGs? Define the ‘starting 5’ and move the others as a second layer? For example, self-awareness is needed to develop almost all of the others, right? Does that make it metaskill? How do we go about those?
3. Demystifying Inner Development: Is there maybe even a term that has more mainstream appeal than ‘inner development’? Should we use accessible language and relatable examples to communicate the relevance and practicality of the IDGs to students, educators, and policymakers? If so, which one :)?
4. Cohesive measurement: Yes, there is a valid debate about whether or not to measure the IDGs. I personally think people tend to measure things as they become more important anyhow. So, there’s a risk of the IDGs being measured poorly, consequently harming the ‘cause’. I’d love to explore a measurement system that combines ‘rubrics’ of a competence, with ‘awareness’ or knowledge about it, and also include measurements about actual lived experience.
5. Going for UN adoption: the SDGs undoubtedly have had a huge impact on higher education: there is almost no university without an SDG strategy. I’d argue that a big catalyst was the formal UN-endorsed system. Should the IDGs seek that kind of endorsement to become more mainstream?
6. Framework and tool agnostic: As much as I am a fan of the IDGs, we should always be wary of “single truths”. Personally, I care about transformative inner development, whether in line with the IDGs or not. It’s also something I believe in when it comes to Rflect. If our tool can help bring about change faster: great! If it doesn’t work for you, that’s also all right. The revolution should be tool-agnostic. Should it also be framework-agnostic?

Okay, sorry for the brain dump here, but I wanted to get my thoughts out and contribute to the conversation ??.?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

P.S. This article comes solely from my pen with editing help from Alexandra Horvath , Stefano Dozza and ChatGPT. It is based on conversations with many brilliant people, and inspired by Jonathan Rowson thoughtful critique of the IDGs.

(1) Thanks Christine Wamsler for introducing me to this term