Purpose: Sustainability has become a global concern to deal with complex and unprecedent survival, social, political and peace issues. Higher education institutions play a key role in this transformation. This paper aims to conduct a comparative analysis by continents of innovation and sustainability barriers in universities. The document also offers opportunities and potential actions for universities to create initiatives to minimize barriers and move towards a sustainable future. Design/methodology/approach: To carry out the study, 25 closed questions, composed of a five-point Likert scale, were applied to 283 university representatives (rectors, managers or specialists in the area of innovation and sustainability), to check the degree of application of the questionnaire. Findings: From an exploratory statistical analysis, it was found that the main barriers were lacking of planning and focus, lacking of environmental committee, lacking of applicability and continuity of actions and resistance to changes. Among continents, Africa and Oceania presented the best innovation and sustainability indicators in universities. The main approach of this exploratory study on barriers in universities is as an international research, whose findings showed that several barriers currently prevent universities from getting involved in sustainable development efforts. However, as we debate sustainable development, which is gaining momentum, universities are supposed to move forward to overcome barriers for the sake of implementing goals and initiatives. In addition, universities must seize opportunities to contribute through innovation in teaching, research and initiatives to achieve the 17 sustainable development goals. Research limitations/implications: This study has two main limitations: first, online research has involved professionals working in the field of sustainable development in higher education. Second, there were no interviews conducted to gather personal information with students and servers. However, the broad scope of the study and its strong international base provide important results that enable the design of an adequate profile of sustainability and innovation challenges that are currently found in universities. Practical implications: The study showed that there is lack of knowledge management to connect science, technology, innovation and sustainability, to improve management conditions, innovate, make decisions, support initiatives, create incentives and control mechanisms. Trends suggest that future professional activities involve skills in dealing with complex problems, sometimes in careers and jobs yet to be created. Traditional teaching methods are generally only prepared for routine tasks and for existing jobs, thus requiring the creation of new approaches capable of stimulating creativity and autonomy, which are essential for the present and future demands of innovation and sustainability. Social implications: The exploratory study on barriers in universities brings international research as main approach, which made it possible to check that several barriers currently prevent universities from getting involved in sustainable development efforts. However, as we debate sustainable development, which is gaining momentum, it is important that universities should move forward to overcome the barriers to implementation of goals and initiatives. In addition, universities should take advantage of opportunities to contribute through innovation in teaching, research and action to achieve the 17 sustainable development goals. Originality/value: Developed countries are leaders in promoting sustainability, while developing or underdeveloped countries are laggards. In this approach, the study sought to verify the differences through a comparative analysis across continents. As for originality and innovation, this paper presents an international study in the view of specialists who respond based on the experience of their university.

The applicability of Lean practices has been growing in the most different types of organizations, including public ones. Considering the growing need for better and more effective management systems, the objective of this work is to evaluate the influence of Lean practices on process effectiveness. A literature review was carried out to find Lean practices applicable to the public sector organizations and to outline the hypotheses of the work. The method of work consists of a survey, whose data collection was conducted through a questionnaire. The population of the study was composed by all the administrative servants of a public institution in Brazil. A valid sample of 997 answers was obtained from the studied institution. The data analysis was carried out by means of descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and multiple regression. The results allow identifying a positive influence of four Lean practices on the effectiveness of processes, which are: “Continuous improvement,” “Long-term thinking,” “Leadership support,” and “Focus on the final user.” The results also showed the influence of some dummy variables, such as “time in the public service” and “being head of sector.” As a conclusion of this work, it can be stated that Lean practices act as a basis for the effectiveness of processes and may optimize operational and administrative activities in public organizations.

We propose a Pandemic Risk Perception Scale. Our scale comprises two constructs, Dread Risk and Personal Exposure, divided into five dimensions: Infection Risk, Emotional Health Risk, Health System Risk,Financial Risk, and Alimentary Risk. Using multidimensional item response theory, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling on two samples of respondents, our results show that Alimentary Risk, Health System Risk, and Emotional Health Risk are the main dimensions of risk perception for the COVID‐19 pandemic. Furthermore, Infection Risk has a minor impact on the pandemic's risk perception, suggesting the presence of different dynamics between personal and general risk perceptions for the COVID‐19 pandemic.