Digital Transformation

ITV News interviews David Shrier about DeepSeek’s emerging dominance in the technology market

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 03 Feb 2025 09:49:09 +0000

ITV News interviews David Shrier about DeepSeek’s emerging dominance in the technology market Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 03/02/2025 - 09:49

27 January 2025

The Times features Imperial’s new Venture Capital Fellowship

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 27 Jan 2025 12:05:17 +0000

The Times features Imperial’s new Venture Capital Fellowship Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 27/01/2025 - 12:05

22 January 2025

Education and Learning

Will European regulators shape Hollywood’s bidding war?

Tommaso Valletti — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Will European regulators shape Hollywood’s bidding war?

Tommaso Valletti Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

13 April 2026 Knowledge

Expert Q&A: Henry Dimbleby on the hidden ways ultra-processed foods harm our health and why the government must act now

20 March 2026 Knowledge

'Boomerasking': How to break the annoying habit hurting your workplace relationships

12 March 2026 Knowledge

Who decided what ambition looks like?

5 February 2026

Article at a glance

The European Commission (EC) competition authority is scrutinising rival bids for Warner Bros. from Netflix and Paramount, an unusual scenario
Both bids raise different competition concerns
A frontrunner could emerge if one bidder gets cleared before the other
The EC prefers light-touch remedies
US politics, not Europe, is likely to decide the winner

A bidding saga across the Atlantic

Europe’s competition regulator is simultaneously reviewing competing bids by major US companies Netflix and Paramount to acquire entertainment company Warner Bros. This is unusual and strategically sensitive, given the current geopolitical climate. The bidding saga has attracted significant attention on both sides of the Atlantic.

Both bids raise competition concerns, but in different ways:

The Paramount deal would reduce rivalry between two major Hollywood studios.
Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Bros. would increase market dominance in streaming across Europe

Professor Tommaso Valletti, Professor of Economics at Imperial Business School and former Chief Competition Economist at the EC, questions whether the EC will act boldly, given its preference for light-touch remedies and geopolitical considerations. US politics, not Europe’s regulators, may ultimately decide the winner.

What’s at stake

Netflix agreed to buy Warner Bros.’ studios and streaming assets in a transaction valued around $82.7 billion. To challenge this, rival Paramount Skydance launched a hostile takeover bid for the entire company, including news network CNN, worth $108 billion, offering shareholders a higher per-share cash price.

The Warner Bros. board backs Netflix, but competition concerns are significant and more complex than the ones associated with Paramount’s bid.

A lack of clear precedent in the EU merger control raises a key question: how will the EC proceed?

Because all three companies operate across Europe and the Americas, the European Commission must review the market implications under its EU merger control framework. A simultaneous review could shape the race. By clearing one bidder, while subjecting the other to a longer investigation, a frontrunner could emerge.

A lack of clear precedent in EU merger control raises a key question: how will the EC proceed? Historically, the regulator tends to favour light-touch remedies, like small divestitures or access commitments, over prohibitions.

Netflix: from scale to market power

Netflix’s story of scale in Europe has shifted to revenue diversification. Netflix already shows signs of pricing power: in the UK, a standard subscription rose from £6 to £13 per month over the past decade. A deal with Warner Bros. would lead to:

Further market concentration: Netflix already holds over 50 percent of Europe’s subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) market. Combining this with Warner Bros.’ studios, HBO Max and other streaming platforms would increase its dominance.
Monopolisation of streaming content: Netflix could control one of the largest content libraries and production pipelines in the world, cutting off production for cinemas and other traditional content platforms.

Netflix could address these concerns through remedies such as divesting HBO Max. Its likely defence would be that its streaming services compete with a broader digital entertainment market, including social media and video gaming. Regulators may accept this argument to some extent, although previous merger reviews have generally used a narrower, SVOD-focused market definition.

Paramount: traditional Hollywood rivalry

Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. raises more traditional competition concerns. Combining two established major Hollywood studios would:

reduce industry rivalry and lead to fewer big players in Hollywood,
increase bargaining power over distributors, advertisers and creators, and
potentially lead to fewer market players, less innovation, higher costs for consumers.

The deal would also continue the consolidation of Hollywood studios that has been ongoing for 50 years, reducing the “Big Five” studios (Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Paramount and Sony) to four. Disney would remain number one, possibly facing stronger competition from the combined entities currently ranked number two (Warner Bros.) and number five (Paramount).

While the merger could be easier to clear overall, overlaps between the studios, for example franchises between Paramount and Warner Bros., could still raise competition concerns that may be harder to address.

Why Europe and the US may decide differently

Whether the EC’s decision will impact the deal remains uncertain. In the US, regulators face a different and more political context. Paramount’s bid would include CNN, which Netflix is not acquiring. President Trump, a vocal critic of CNN, has previously argued that the network should be sold or restructured. These dynamics may influence the outcome.

Given the current political climate, a European ban on either deal seems unlikely. While the EC can still influence the pace and outcome of the bidding war, the winner will ultimately be decided in the US.

Subscribe to our newsletter featuring faculty-led insights

IB Knowledge Newsletter Signup

Consumers

Finance and institutional resilience

Knowledge Categories

Finance

Academic area

Economics & Public Policy

A rare regulatory scenario could see Brussels tilt the Netflix - Paramount battle for Warner Bros.

Main image: ugurhan / iStock via Getty Images

4 minute read

Off

When winning comes at a price: The business of pay-to-win add-ons

Mushegh Harutyunyan — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

When winning comes at a price: The business of pay-to-win add-ons

Mushegh Harutyunyan Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

13 April 2026 Knowledge

Expert Q&A: Henry Dimbleby on the hidden ways ultra-processed foods harm our health and why the government must act now

20 March 2026 Knowledge

'Boomerasking': How to break the annoying habit hurting your workplace relationships

12 March 2026 Knowledge

Who decided what ambition looks like?

17 September 2025

The video game industry is booming. According to Statista, more than three billion people played video games worldwide in 2024. As per PwC’s Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2022-26, the gaming industry is tipped to maintain its recent rapid growth, and could be worth $321 billion by 2026. A big slice of that — $82 billion in 2024 — came from in-game purchases such as cosmetic “skins”, virtual currency, map packs, and more. In the UK, a recent Censuswide poll revealed that gamers, on average, spend £540 a year on in-game purchases (£22 a month) and subscriptions (£23 a month).

One of the most debated forms of in-game spending is the pay-to-win add-on, a digital item that gives players a clear advantage in player-versus-player games. A special weapon in Call of Duty: Warzone, a premium camouflage in Escape from Tarkov, or unique cards in Hearthstone can tilt the odds decisively in favor of paying players. For the buyer, these items boost the chance of winning; for everyone else, they create a frustrating disadvantage. One gamer described their game experience bluntly: “It was absurd and halfway to unplayable if you didn’t drain your wallet.”

The developer’s dilemma

At first glance, offering P2W add-ons seems like easy money. They cost little to produce and appeal directly to players’ powerful motivations: the desire to win and the dread of losing. Yet our research shows that the business case is more nuanced.

Unlike traditional add-ons (like hotel WiFi or an extended warranty), the value of P2W items is shaped by network effects. Their appeal grows when few players own them, because they confer an advantage over many others. But as adoption of P2W items spreads, their edge diminishes.

Players who do not spend on P2W may abandon the game entirely as they face a daunting competitive disadvantage against the large number of P2W owners. The fewer non-buyers remain, the smaller is the pool of players against whom P2W will bring an advantage, further eroding the add-on’s value. This negative network effect created by the P2W add-ons calls for a careful assessment of market conditions before introducing them. We find that ironically, when a large share of players is willing to buy, introducing P2W can reduce profits, leaving developers better off without it.

The psychology of competition makes this balance even trickier. Players who are highly motivated by winning make the add-on more lucrative: the thrill of victory increases their willingness to pay. But the story is different with loss sensitivity. If defeats sting only mildly, add-ons hold little attraction. If they sting too much, non-buyers disengage altogether. Developers can influence these sensitivities through design choices — making victories more rewarding while keeping defeats painful but not unbearable.

Design and pricing

One might assume that the stronger the add-on, the better for profits. Yet our findings suggest otherwise. Making the add-on too powerful discourages non-buyers from playing at all, shrinking the competitive field and eroding the add-on’s value. In highly competitive genres, developers may actually benefit from deliberately limiting the power of pay-to-win items, ensuring the game remains engaging for all.

The introduction of P2W items forces developers to lower the base game price to keep P2W-non-buyers in the fold, compensating their disadvantage against P2W-buyers. In some cases, this means shifting to a freemium model, or even — in theory — setting a negative price, paying players to participate because their presence sustains the market for add-ons. And while lower prices might seem to discourage investment in quality, the opposite can happen: when losses feel especially painful for non-buyers, developers are pushed to raise quality to keep them engaged.

Perhaps most surprising is what this means for players themselves. P2W is often accused of undermining fairness and reducing enjoyment. Yet under the right conditions, our analysis shows it can actually increase player surplus. By broadening the player base and motivating higher investment in quality, the system can leave players better off than in a world without P2W.

Keeping the pond healthy

Players are often categorised into "whales" (big spenders), "dolphins" (moderate spenders) and "minnows" (low or non-spenders). For developers, pay-to-win add-ons are a tempting way to extract more profits from the less price-sensitive whales and dolphins. Yet their very success depends on the participation of the more price-sensitive minnows. These players may never spend much, but their presence ensures that competitive advantages remain meaningful for others. If minnows abandon the game, the pond dries up — and the value of P2W erodes with it.

The lesson is clear: introducing P2W is not simply about monetizing the biggest spenders. It is about keeping the entire ecosystem in balance. Developers who want sustainable profits must design their games so that whales, dolphins, and minnows can all swim in the same pond — even if not on equal terms.

Explore key findings

Access the paper by Mushegh Harutyunyan and Esma Koca

Finance

Investment

Finance and institutional resilience

Knowledge Categories

Finance

Academic area

Analytics & Operations

Marketing

Pay-to-win (P2W) add-ons are controversial in the gaming industry. New research by Mushegh Harutyunyan and Esma Koca reveals when a game developer should introduce a P2W add-on and how to design and price it.

Main image: Milan_Jovic / iStock via Getty Images Plus

5 minute read

How AI avatars are revolutionising the student experience at Imperial Business School

Nai Li — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

How AI avatars are revolutionising the student experience at Imperial Business School

Nai Li Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

13 April 2026 Knowledge

Expert Q&A: Henry Dimbleby on the hidden ways ultra-processed foods harm our health and why the government must act now

20 March 2026 Knowledge

'Boomerasking': How to break the annoying habit hurting your workplace relationships

12 March 2026 Knowledge

Who decided what ambition looks like?

18 August 2025

As GenAI continues to reshape the educational landscape, business schools are exploring new ways to deliver teaching that is both scalable and human-centred. One promising development is the use of AI-powered faculty avatars, digital twins, that can support student learning while preserving the relational core of education. At the crossroads of projected growth in the AI Avatar market and ethical debates, we are beginning to recognise their potential to enhance the learning experience.

In January 2024, the IDEA Lab at Imperial Business School launched a small-scale pilot project in collaboration with David Shrier, Professor of Practice (AI & Innovation), developing an AI avatar named Davatar as an experimental element of his AI Ventures module. The pilot was designed to give ��ý hands-on experience with applied AI in a business context. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with many ��ý identifying Davatar as the standout feature of the module.

Building on this success, in spring 2025, we extended the use of AI avatars to support teaching modules like marketing management, entrepreneurship and innovation, and organisational behaviour on the Global Online MBA and Executive MBA programmes, and piloted three more avatars, MarkBot, OmarBot, and BartBot, which were developed in collaboration with the Touchcast Mentor Platform and Dr Ayelet Segal.

These avatars were not intended to replace human educators, but to supplement and enhance faculty presence in online and blended learning environments. Initial feedback suggests they have the potential to transform the way we support ��ý across different time zones, schedules, and diverse learning needs.

Enhancing faculty presence through digital twins

One of the ongoing challenges in online learning is the reduced sense of human connection. As per an article in Theory of Transactional Distance, ��ý often feel isolated, especially when studying asynchronously or across different time zones, and their success on the programme can be impacted by the degree of “transactional distance” between themselves and their teachers. The AI avatars were created to address this by replicating the voice, tone, and visual likeness of real faculty members, effectively becoming “digital twins.”

This was significant. In feedback surveys, ��ý consistently reported that it felt more natural and reassuring to interact with an avatar that resembled their lecturer. As one student said, “It’s him, just in another form. It makes it feel more like he’s here with us.” This was especially important during periods of high stress, such as when approaching assignment deadlines, when ��ý often seek last-minute reassurance or clarification.

By embedding academic identity into the avatar experience, we were able to foster trust and sustain the continuity of the learning relationship. Our research in this area will continue to explore whether digital twins can contribute to a reduction in the perceived transactional distance for ��ý in a blended or fully online programme.

Supporting flexible and on-demand learning

For ��ý juggling work, family, and studies, often across different time zones, the traditional model of office hours and scheduled tutorials can be limiting. One of the main benefits of the avatars was their 24/7 availability. Students could engage with them whenever they needed support, whether during a lunch break in Singapore or late at night in London.

Usage data from March to June 2025 showed clear spikes in avatar engagement just before major assignment deadlines. Students used them not for casual conversation, but for structured academic queries, whether seeking help with frameworks, clarification of learning outcomes, or guidance on assessments. This on-demand support reduced barriers to learning and made academic support more equitable and responsive.

In 1984, educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom reported that ��ý tutored one-to-one performed two standard deviations better than peers taught only in a group environment. Our research may help us understand whether AI avatars might one day help us solve the problem of scaling personalised one-to-one tutoring to make it available on-demand for all ��ý.

Strategic implications for educators and institutions

The pilot raises broader questions about how AI can be integrated into teaching practice. First, any introduction of AI must begin with pedagogy, not technology. It is Imperial Business School’s belief that tools like avatars should be designed to enhance – never to weaken or replace - the thoughtful dialogue and interaction between student and teacher that underpins effective learning.

Secondly, the identity of the educator is important. Avatars that resemble real faculty members, both visually and vocally, help build stronger bonds with ��ý. These aren’t anonymous chatbots; they are extensions of the educator’s presence. This sense of familiarity encourages engagement and helps ��ý see AI as an ally, not a threat.

Third, professional development will be crucial. To ensure faculty feel confident using these tools, we must offer opportunities to improve both technical skills and pedagogical understanding. This isn’t just about learning to operate a new platform; it’s about rethinking how we design and deliver teaching in an AI-enhanced environment.

Where do we go from here?

This was an initial pilot phase involving three modules and a small group of early-adopting faculty. The next step is to expand the initiative more broadly, testing AI avatar use across various disciplines, delivery modes, and levels of AI familiarity. In parallel, we will continue to research student and academic attitudes towards the use of AI tools in education, and to explore the ethical and environmental aspects of this technology.

Ultimately, our goal is not to replace the human elements of teaching, but to explore the responsible use of AI to enhance them. Digital twins offer a way to extend faculty presence, provide responsive support, and foster more inclusive learning experiences. When used thoughtfully, they may help us reimagine what personalised education can be like in an increasingly digital world.

Moving beyond FAQs: designing for dialogue

Many AI tools in education often fall short because they are designed to deliver content passively, primarily answering frequently asked questions, and do little to support critical thinking or deeper understanding. Our aim was different. We wanted to explore whether AI avatars could play a meaningful pedagogical role by facilitating a more interactive and reflective learning process.

To achieve this, we designed the avatar conversations based on Laurillard’s Conversational Framework, a model that sees learning as a dialogue between teacher and student. Students weren’t simply given answers. Instead, the avatars guided them back to key programme concepts and helped them explore different interpretations and applications.

For example, a student might ask, “Is this a good example of emotional intelligence in the team task?” or “Should I apply Porter’s Five Forces to the group case or the individual one?” Rather than giving binary responses, the avatars encouraged the student to reflect and engage more deeply with the material.

Initial feedback [on the AI-powered faculty avatars] suggests they have the potential to transform the way we support ��ý across different time zones, schedules, and diverse learning needs.

Discover more

IDEA Lab

Innovation

Student Experience

Knowledge Categories

Centre for Climate Finance and Investment

Academic area

Analytics & Operations

These AI-powered digital twins are transforming learning across time zones and diverse needs

Main image: OmarBot | Imperial Business School

5 minute read

Off

Adapting to a changing climate: how businesses can mitigate physical environmental risks

Michael Wilkins — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

Adapting to a changing climate: how businesses can mitigate physical environmental risks

Michael Wilkins Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

13 April 2026 Knowledge

Expert Q&A: Henry Dimbleby on the hidden ways ultra-processed foods harm our health and why the government must act now

20 March 2026 Knowledge

'Boomerasking': How to break the annoying habit hurting your workplace relationships

12 March 2026 Knowledge

Who decided what ambition looks like?

23 June 2025

Global warming is causing sea levels to rise, heatwaves to increase in severity, and floods and storms to be more common. Rural areas are often perceived to bear the brunt of these physical impacts, but urban areas are not immune. Cities are likely to face major climate-related physical disruption in the near future. Impacts such as heatwaves and heavy rainfall may cost the UK, for example, as much as 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2045, according to estimates.

Planning and investment in adaptation is key in preparing for and mitigating this toll, including flood protection, nature restoration and green infrastructure. However, research shows that businesses could be underestimating investor losses from physical climate risks by as much as 70 per cent, rising to 82 per cent when extreme risks such as cyclones and floods are also taken into account.

Financing change

To address this issue, businesses need to be able to attract the requisite investment to fund climate adaptation projects. Blended finance mechanisms can help with this, combining public and private resources to reduce investor risk. Specific market instruments such as catastrophe bonds, environmental impact bonds and insurance premium incentives can also mitigate risk.

Similarly, grant funding can help to cover project development costs and protect against initial losses, while government guarantees can help to reduce perceived risks for investors. More radically, a switch to results-based financing may help to shift industry focus away from tokenistic actions and towards achieving specific adaptation outcomes.

Recent research from Imperial’s Centre for Climate Finance and Investment explores some of these approaches in detail. The research focuses on how climate adaptation and resilience measures can be financed to protect London and the UK from physical climate threats, including lessons from Copenhagen and Singapore.

Firms should be looking to integrate physical climate adaptation into their net-zero strategies, making it a shared responsibility across the C-suite.

First steps in adaptation

Currently, firms frequently rely on commercial risk assessments using corporate-level scoring systems. These lack transparency and are difficult to reproduce, and they tend to miss the crucial location-specific vulnerabilities that climate change is rapidly exacerbating.

Compounding the issue, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often lack the tools and information to effectively carry out more accurate assessments, or lack the management will to address an issue that sits beyond the typical risk management horizon of 3-10 years. Climate adaptation projects are also tricky to fund, being highly site-specific and resource-intensive.

Culturally too, there is an issue with how firms view adaptation. World Economic Forum research found that while 60 per cent of businesses see climate mitigation as a very high priority, only 27 per cent felt the same about climate adaptation. This suggests many view climate risk as a general social responsibility or business opportunity, rather than an immediate threat necessitating practical action.

Taking steps

As an initial step, switching from corporate risk scoring to asset-level damage assessments would help provide businesses a more accurate picture in terms of climate risk pricing, particularly when it comes to highlighting vulnerabilities specific to a particular site or area. The findings can then inform continuity, crisis and recovery plans for climate-related physical events, from water supply stresses to natural disasters.

More broadly, firms should be looking to integrate physical climate adaptation into their net-zero strategies, making it a shared responsibility across the C-suite. Businesses can support this approach by conducting capability audits to measure how well climate resilience is embedded throughout different parts of the organisation.

Following this process, single points of failure can be addressed through such actions as diversifying supply chains and delivery routes. At the same time, businesses can create contingency plans to support the safety, health and productivity of their workforces in case of specific failures or risks occurring, and look to partner with stakeholders to develop system-wide responses.

Policy support

Realistically, these steps are unlikely to take place at the required pace and scale without adequate policy support. Governments need to build on existing reporting requirements from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, mandating the type of comprehensive climate risk assessments and plans discussed above.

The International Sustainability Standards Board provides a framework for this, but policymakers still have a key role to play in terms of ensuring that businesses substantively engage with adaptation planning, rather than treating it as an inconvenient compliance exercise.

To help with this, governments can stipulate penalties for non-cooperation and provide financial incentives, including targeted financial support for climate adaptation project development at the same level that already exists for climate mitigation work.

Policymakers can also help to scale projects by coordinating stakeholders to encourage collaboration, and by streamlining regulatory processes to support investment. The establishment of dedicated offices, such as the UK’s Regulatory Innovation Office, can help to reduce regulatory barriers to climate adaptation technologies.

Future outlook

Looking long-term, adaptation policies can be explicitly linked to economic growth objectives, highlighting how climate resilience supports economic development. This includes incorporating adaptation into industrial strategies and innovation policies, ensuring that climate resilience becomes a cornerstone of economic competitiveness rather than an additional burden.

This is crucial, given the urgent need for businesses, investors and policymakers to start viewing physical climate adaptation not just as a social responsibility or an investment opportunity, but as an existential threat.

Edited 23 June 2025: This article’s strapline was changed for accuracy and to better reflect the findings of the research.

Learn more

Climate Change

Climate Finance

Corporate Social Responsibility

Sustainability and climate change

Sustainability

Research Centre

Centre for Climate Finance & Investment

Knowledge Categories

Entrepreneurship & Innovation

Academic area

Management & Entrepreneurship

As physical climate risks intensify, new research from Imperial’s Centre for Climate Finance and Investment reveals how climate adaptation and resilience measures can be financed to protect businesses in London and the UK from these threats

Main image: Korakrich Suntornnites / iStock via Getty Images Plus

4 minute read

Off

How AI can guide educators in embedding sustainability into curriculum

Esther Canonico-Martin — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

How AI can guide educators in embedding sustainability into curriculum

Esther Canonic… Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

13 April 2026 Knowledge

Expert Q&A: Henry Dimbleby on the hidden ways ultra-processed foods harm our health and why the government must act now

20 March 2026 Knowledge

'Boomerasking': How to break the annoying habit hurting your workplace relationships

12 March 2026 Knowledge

Who decided what ambition looks like?

9 June 2025

As educators and as a university, we have an overarching responsibility to equip ��ý to become responsible members of society, who can contribute to a healthier, more inclusive world. Achieving this requires us to embed sustainability meaningfully into our learning and teaching.

However, academics often face significant barriers to achieving this, including time pressures, limited guidance on how to go about it, uncertainty about how sustainability relates to their discipline, or a narrow understanding of what sustainability entails.

And it’s important to note, in relation to this last point, that the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) make it clear that sustainability is a broad and interconnected concept. It extends beyond climate and biodiversity to include quality education, gender equality, reduction of inequalities, and more.

Beyond box-ticking: creating ‘aha’ moments

So, how can we truly integrate sustainability into learning and teaching at Imperial Business School? One starting point is through direct messaging – at student inductions or in programme introductions, for example – positioning sustainability as a core university value.

While useful, however, this approach can fall flat in a world saturated with sustainability messaging, where ��ý may experience ‘sustainability fatigue’. For this reason, instead of focusing on overt principles, we may actually be able to achieve greater impact by guiding ��ý towards making their own realisations – those ‘aha’ moments where a deeper understanding of sustainability clicks into place through the learning experience itself.

For example, in my own teaching, I ask management ��ý to complete personality tests and explore different conflict management styles. These activities expose ��ý to a range of valid approaches to work, helping them appreciate perspectives different from their own.

This kind of experiential learning fosters a deeper understanding of the value of individual differences in the workplace, highlighting how inclusion can enhance performance. It is an essential step towards reducing inequalities and promoting inclusion, which is directly related to sustainability.

To help educators to work in this way, however, we need to link sustainability with our learning outcomes. UNESCO offers a framework that maps the UN SDGs to learning outcomes, suggesting how to integrate them across programmes. But, even with this support, embedding a holistic approach to sustainability takes time and effort, particularly at the outset.

A framework for deeper integration

This is where generative AI tools can be useful, enabling academics to map and audit programme content for alignment with the UN SDGs. That said, generative AI has its limits. It can only interpret what's explicitly stated in the content, often missing subtler connections.

In the teaching situation I discussed earlier, for example, activities such as completing personality assessments and exploring different conflict management styles can help ��ý develop awareness of individual differences, which is a crucial step towards inclusion and reducing inequalities. However, AI platforms would likely not flag them as sustainability-related, in spite of the fact that they absolutely are, aligning directly with UN SDGs focused on equality and inclusion.

To address this, as the UNESCO framework suggests, we should consider learning outcomes at three levels: cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural. In other words, ��ý must first understand sustainability concepts, then connect with them personally, and ultimately apply them in practice.

In my own practice, I still use generative AI platforms as a support tool. I begin by identifying key areas of my module with shared learning goals. Then, I ask the AI to suggest relevant UN SDGs and map them to learning outcomes across the cognitive, emotional and behavioural domains. This produces a more accurate, nuanced audit of sustainability in my teaching, helping to reinforce a broader, more integrated view of what sustainability really means.

This approach is, hopefully, a first step toward a future where sustainability is an intrinsic part of all teaching at Imperial Business School, supported by technology and grounded in deeper understanding. It may require incentives, such as recognition for good practice, but momentum is already growing towards making sustainability a natural part of how we teach and learn.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Climate Change