An Interview with Aija Jankava, Head of School Library, Olaine Secondary School No. 1, Latvia
The library as the beating heart of school
Aija Jankava’s job description reads like a quiet mission statement for sustainability. As Head of the school library at Olaine Secondary School No. 1 in Latvia, she teaches research and literacy skills to students from age 6 to 18, maintains a learning environment that supports the school’s educational programmes, and ensures the library is, in her own words, “the beating heart of the school.”
She actively supports the school’s vision and culture. She works with multiple generations at once. She builds the foundations for lifelong learning — one of the most durable outcomes any institution can invest in.
All of this is ESG. None of it has been labelled as such.
“ESG competencies are all included,” she explains, “but not under the name ESG.” The tools are already in the room. The vocabulary hasn’t arrived yet.
Three dimensions, one honest assessment
When Jankava maps the ESG landscape for GLAM institutions, she is direct and differentiated. On what is most developed, she identifies responsible sourcing, ethical labour practices, and knowledge of governance structures, transparency, and accountability. These, she argues, are already embedded in professional culture — they simply aren’t called ESG.
What is least developed? The ability to design and implement long-term sustainability strategies. An understanding of climate change risks, carbon management, and environmental impact assessment. These require a level of technical knowledge and long-term institutional planning that most library professionals — especially in school settings — have never been trained for.
This is a structural gap, not a personal one. School libraries operate under tight constraints: small budgets, single-person staffing, heavy curricular demands. There is little room for the kind of strategic sustainability thinking that ESG frameworks demand.
The data problem
Jankava’s identification of the critical competency gap is pointed: the ability to collect, analyse, and interpret ESG-related data. This is not about awareness. It’s about tools.
“ESG data management is complex,” she notes, echoing a finding that runs across the ESG4GLAM research. Institutions want to demonstrate their impact — on learning, on inclusion, on community wellbeing — but they lack the frameworks and indicators to do so credibly.
This matters because ESG reporting without data is not ESG. It is aspiration. And aspiration, however genuine, doesn’t change funding decisions or institutional priorities.
What learning should look like
For Jankava, the answer to the capacity gap is clear: “Courses and practical trainings.” Not abstract frameworks. Not long theoretical programmes. Practical, applied, actionable learning — built around the realities of a school library professional whose time is limited and whose students are waiting.
She is also candid about the systemic barriers: “It is hard to answer” when asked how governance structures influence ESG — because in a school library, the link between institutional governance and sustainability has never been made explicit. That invisibility is itself the problem.
ESG as a new language for existing values
Jankava’s closing message is optimistic but demanding. ESG should begin with concept — making the framework legible and relevant before asking professionals to implement it. “Let’s start with ESG concept,” she says, describing what would actually help.
And when asked about European alignment: “Harmonisation at European level is always important.” This is not bureaucratic compliance. It’s a recognition that a school librarian in Latvia working with students on digital literacy and inclusion is part of a European-wide effort — and deserves the recognition and tools to match.