Communities are central to achieving the SDGs, as they serve as both drivers and beneficiaries of sustainable development. The engagement of communities fosters local ownership, ensuring development initiatives are more sustainable and impactful. When communities are actively involved, they become stewards of progress, for example as seen in environmental conservation projects where local groups protect vital resources for their livelihoods (Esteves et al., 2021). Community-building also promotes collective problem-solving, leveraging diverse insights, including indigenous knowledge, to develop context-specific solutions that align with global goals (Franco and Tracey, 2019). Strong, cohesive communities enhance resilience, providing critical support systems during crises such as climate change or health pandemics. Additionally, community-building advances equity and inclusion by amplifying the voices of marginalised groups like women, youth, and indigenous peoples (Mawere and Mukonza, forthcoming). This not only addresses systemic inequalities but also ensures that the benefits of sustainable development are equitably distributed, fostering a more just and inclusive society.  

This track welcomes pedagogical, research, and/or practitioners’ perspectives about community building for meaningful and lasting progress towards the SDGs. Key topics may include (but not restricted to) the role of communities in all its forms (virtual, local, global, generational) in achieving the SDGs, acknowledging a range of factors such as community empowerment, social capital, trust, indigenous knowledge, bottom-up innovation, inclusivity and resilience.

Critics contend that beneath ambitious and universally appealing vision of the SDGs lies significant concerns about effectiveness, equity, and unintended consequences. These concerns reflect the complexity of pursuing sustainability in a world marked by political, economic, and social inequalities, where diverse interests and varying power dynamics of stakeholders can conflict or create tension (Smith et al., 2022). For example, the SDG framework, with its 17 goals and 169 targets, is often criticised for being too broad, leading to trade-offs, diluted efforts, and selective prioritisation. This can result in countries or organisations focusing on less urgent but more convenient goals, such as economic growth, at the expense of environmental sustainability (Nieuwenkamp, 2017; Ferrón et al., 2022). We have also seen tensions play out through student protests in university campuses across the world, often over ethical concerns such as fossil fuel divestment or, more recently, in relation to the war in Gaza.  Here is exposed a paradox where on one hand, universities encourage the advancement of environmental, social, and economic sustainability goals, but on the other hand may criticise, restrain or object to students voice in priority of financial or geopolitical considerations (Maina, et al., 2020; Adams and Abdul, 2024). There is also the risk that SDGs can perpetuate inequalities. Power imbalances among stakeholders often mean that larger, more resourced entities may dominate decision-making, marginalising smaller partners or community voices. Critical reflections on the ‘Western centric’ design of the SDGs suggest that current approaches marginalise culturally appropriate solutions from the Global South and/or create development initiatives that overlook local needs, creating resentment and resistance (Chen, 2024). Finding resolutions requires patience, negotiation, creative problem solving and a willingness to compromise. Moreover, the voluntary nature of the SDGs further complicates accountability, as self-reporting allows stakeholders to highlight successes while downplaying shortcomings in so called ‘SDG-washing’ (Munro, 2020). Furthermore, conflicting accountability mechanisms and varying degrees of commitment can exacerbate distrust, as some partners may appear to benefit more while contributing less. This highlights the need for robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks that account for the collective nature of progress (Bowen et al., 2017). Such tensions are increasingly exhibited in a context of political and economic volatility. Disruptions to the world’s political order, economic crises and international warfare, or even pandemics, can derail progress made among key stakeholders across the globe. Building resilience into collaborative frameworks is essential to withstand these external shocks and sustain progress toward the SDGs.  

This track welcomes pedagogical, research, and/or practitioners’ perspectives about navigating conflict and tensions in an increasingly complex and volatile environment. Key topics may include (but not restricted to) papers that explore conflicting priorities and trade-offs, power dynamics, cultural tensions, political tensions, ‘SDG-washing’, dissenting voices or ‘woke-backlash’, and how these tensions and conflicts can be managed and resolved to ensure continued progress towards the SDGs.  

Authors who also wish to be included in the conference book of abstracts, which will be styled and published with a view to it serving as a pedagogical resource, are asked to submit a 1500-word extended abstract. The book of abstracts will be disseminated via the PRME Chapter UK & Ireland website and PRME Commons platform following the conference.  

Authors who wish to submit a proposal for a 60-minute workshop are asked to complete the relevant template. In reviewing proposals for workshops, particular consideration will be given to sessions that are truly interactive in nature.

Authors at the earlier stages of a project who are not ready to deliver a full paper but would benefit from developmental feedback and the opportunity to engage in networking are invited to submit proposals for a ‘Pecha Kucha’ style presentation (a presentation style that uses 20 slides or images, each displayed for 20 seconds as the speaker is presenting).