Abstract: In this conceptual paper, we wish to argue that the commitment to transitions for sustainability has implications regarding the way knowledge is seen. Sustainability fundamentally implies a recognition of the interconnectedness of phenomena across sectors, disciplines and geographical locations (Avery & Nordén, 2017), as well as responsible decision-making linked to democracy and power distribution (Fine et al., 2012). All of these points have relevance to the connections between policy and research. The metaphor for truth in academia has long been one of disembodied contemplation of an absolute state of existence. By contrast, ’knowing-for-sustainable action’ is based on how the human and the societal relates to our modes of producing knowledge and competence, both with respect to what we need to know something about, and what we can do about it. This not only concerns questions of ontology and epistemology for individual studies, but also refers to how we collectively organise academic institutions (Aikens et al., 2016; Lysgaard et al., 2016; Payne, 2016; Avery & Nordén, 2017) and as societies, to develop the know-how needed for planetary survival (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2017). By defining economic objectives independently of sustainability and letting non-sustainable conceptualisations of economics determine policies of research and education, we have condemned sustainability to function as an add-on to business as usual. Even more worryingly, when sustainability agendas do take the forefront in policy discourse, proposed solutions may be those pushed by powerful industrial lobbies (Peck et al., 2012). Another challenge is posed by fragmented aims underlying sustainability education, and supported by similar fragmentation in SDGs, or European climate commitments for instance (cf. COP23 Bonn). Although each goal is certainly important, the combined effect is to foster a belief that transition to sustainability can be achieved through incremental changes and without reconsidering the overall structures or drivers. Understanding is siloed into existing disciplinary framings (Mochizuki & Yarime, 2016). Measurement coupled with accountability has in many cases had impacts on administrative routines and structures. One the one side measurement has valuable functions in documenting a status quo, raising visibility of sustainability dimensions and providing a starting point for discussions across national borders. But on the other side, it has limited potential on its own to drive transformative changes and there is a real risk that it can lock our understanding into uncontroversial expressions of the problems at stake, preventing strategic long-term reflection. In the Symposium: The Opportunities and Limitations of ESD/GCE/ESE Monitoring Approaches - Knowledge Production within and beside Standardization Chair: Mandy Singer-Brodowski (Freie Universität Berlin) Discussant: Jutta Nikel (University of Education Freiburg) In the context of globalized educational policies (Rizvi/ Lingard 2010) and the international Agenda 2030, evaluation and monitoring approaches are gaining increasingly political relevance and public visibility. While there existed differentiated indicator sets for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) during the UN Decade (e.g., UNECE 2005), the current strategies focus on defining one indicator to capture progress (SDG 4.7). Although there are only few studies about the systematic integration of ESD on the level of national policies (Læssøe/ Mochizuki 2015: 28), there is a trend of using indicator-based research projects to measure the state of ESD in specific regions and also push the further integration of ESD (i.e. in sustainability strategies, educational reports). Nevertheless, the monitoring of ESD, GCE (Global Citizenship Education) or ESE (Environmental and Sustainability Education) holds not only opportunities for communicating progressive educational approaches in the light of global challenges, but also the risk to reduce, de-contextualize and oversimplify the research objects. Based on the assumption, that ESE is not only influenced by international policy trends but also by the cultural and socio-political conditions and the landscape of actors in local contexts (Blum et al. 2012, Feinstein et al. 2013), the question arises how suitable standardized and indicator-based evaluation and monitoring approaches are for capturing the multi-facetted practices of ESD. On the one side there is the risk that standardized approaches based on international indicators and strategies are leading to a narrowing of the very specific and context sensitive understandings and practices of ESD, GCE and ESE in local contexts. On the other side, the potentials of these approaches can be seen in measuring, communicating and thereby mainstreaming the approaches through evidence-based policy strategies. Further questions emerge with the dynamics of gaining policy-relevant evidence at the science policy interface, i.e. looking at the level of independence of monitoring reports in ESD (Nazir et al. 2009). During the symposium, the opportunities and limitations of ESD/GCE/ECE monitoring approaches are discussed against the background of general trends in educational and sustainability policies. The overall question is what kind of knowledge is used as a base for monitoring approaches in the context of ECE/ ESD and GCE and how this knowledge is adapted (or not) by policy-makers. Three presentations will focus on this question from different perspectives and different countries (Chile, Germany and Sweden). The first presentation highlights tensions between local knowledge about environmental related education and the National ESD policy strategy of Chile. A main result of the presented research project is that Chilean teachers are using contextualized approaches stemming from traditional concepts of environmental related education but are measured by a standardized environmental management approach in their schools. The second presentation focusses on the results of the ESD monitoring in Germany that are communicated and used at the science policy interface. It reflects how the policy relevant knowledge is used i,.n various ways and which kinds of chances and risks can be seen in it (e.g., by reducing complexity). The third presentation focusses on the changing conceptions of policy relevant knowledge (production) in the background of the global trend of economization of educational policies. This trend seems to support a fragmented and isolated mode of standardization for incremental change in sustainability and educational policies rather than the fundamental transformation that is needed regarding global sustainability problems. The symposium wants to combine different perspectives on how policy-relevant and standardized knowledge about ESD/GCE/ECE monitoring is produced, communicated, critized and sometimes even rejected. Thus, it wants to open up discussions about a critical and reflected engagement of researchers at the science policy interface (Læssøe et al. 2013).