times higher education impact rankings

These are the world’s most sustainable universities

The University of Manchester has been listed among the most sustainable universities. Image:  Unsplash/ Zhanhui Li

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Stephen Hall

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Economic Progress is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, economic progress.

Listen to the article

• The Times Higher Education’s Impact Rankings 2022 is the world’s only list measuring universities’ contributions against the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
• This year, Western Sydney University in Australia topped the list of the most sustainable universities, with Hokkaido University in Japan coming tenth.
• Overall, the UK has the most universities in the top 100 at 20.

From the Paris revolt in 1968 to the anti-Vietnam war student strikes, academic establishments have long been instigators of societal change.

And, as the climate crisis intensifies, the need for large-scale transformation has never been more urgent. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 , aims to accelerate this change.

The Times Higher Education’s (THE) Impact Rankings 2022 is the world’s only list measuring universities’ contributions against these goals. Globally, 1,400 universities from 106 countries or regions were assessed in terms of research, stewardship, outreach and teaching.

Here are the institutions - and countries - making the most impact right now.

The world’s most sustainable universities

This year, Western Sydney University, an institution in Penrith, Australia leads the pack in meeting criteria related to the SDGs.

THE found the institution was:

• 1st worldwide for SDG6: Clean water and sanitation.
• 2nd worldwide for SDG12: Responsible consumption and production.
• 3rd worldwide for SDG5: Gender equality.
• 4th worldwide for SDG10: Reduced inequalities.
• 5th worldwide for SDG17: Partnership for the goals

Following its 1st place ranking, the university’s Vice-Chancellor and President, Professor Barney Glover said, “we are particularly proud of our work to drive important social change and transformation with and for our local communities, as well as our role to help produce the next generation of innovators, thought leaders and civic-minded citizens.”

Second place went to Arizona State University in the US. It ranked 1st in the world in three SDG categories: Sustainable cities and communities; Life below water; and Life on land.

" Our planet is pushing back on us. We are learning that our planet is not limitless ; it’s trying to tell us something through droughts, wildfires, viruses and more," said Peter Schlosser, Vice President of the university. The institution has partnered with or instigated a number of sustainability initiatives, including the Allen Coral Atlas, the first global habitat tool to map the world’s tropical, shallow coral reefs.

Canada’s Western University also scored highly, achieving third place. Western placed in the top five in the world for four SDGs: N o poverty, Zero hunger, Life below water and Peace, justice and strong institutions , and improved its global ranking in 13 of the 17 SDGs.

Universities at emerging economies score highly

In joint fourth position were two universities from emerging economies, King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia’s Universiti Sains. King Abdulaziz University achieved a top score for SDG 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure. Meanwhile, Universiti Sains Malaysia achieved 1st place for SDG 17: Partnership for the goals.

The University of Auckland, New Zealand placed 6th globally. In 2020, the institution was appointed as the official centre for SDG 4: Quality Education, by the United Nations Academic Impact .

Queen’s University in Canada achieved 7th place. It scored highly on SDG 1: combating poverty and SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities.

UK achieves most universities in the top 100

The highest ranked UK institution was Newcastle University in eighth place, followed by the University of Manchester in ninth. Newcastle University has an SDG Committee which steers action at the university , and its Global Challenges Academy brings together research that supports the SDGs. Meanwhile, the University of Manchester has made a commitment to zero carbon in-line with the City of Manchester’s 2038 goal. Overall, the UK has the most universities in the top 100 at 20.

Hokkaido University, in Japan, rounded out the top 10 with a first place score on SDG 2: Combating hunger, and a high score for SDG 15: Protecting life on land.

Have you read?

Here's why the same 6 universities are consistently rated the best in the world, has the un reached its sustainable development goals yes and no, what next for higher education here's an alternate learning model for the future, don't miss any update on this topic.

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Economic Growth .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

We need to kickstart growth – but this time, it must work for all

Saadia Zahidi

April 29, 2024

These 5 megatrends will shape the Gulf and beyond over the next 25 years

Ahmed Galal Ismail

April 28, 2024

The latest on the US economy, and other economics stories to read

April 26, 2024

What kind of growth do we want?

The world's top businesses do these 4 things to thrive in turbulent times

Simon Freakley

The global supply of equities is shrinking – here's what you need to know

Emma Charlton

April 24, 2024

The Times Higher Education issues annual Impact Rankings based on four approaches to advancing the SDGs: research, stewardship, outreach, and teaching.

In the 2021 rankings, the top ten include universities in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, the US, and New Zealand, while schools in other countries rank first on specific SDGs.

In a separate initiative, the presidents of 56 universities in 30 countries signed a commitment to work together to meet the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.

A higher education publication has issued its 2021 findings on the SDG performance of universities globally. The top ten include higher education institutions in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, the US, and New Zealand. Universities in Portugal and South Korea rank as most improved.

The Times Higher Education issues annual Impact Rankings based on four approaches to advancing the SDGs: research, stewardship, outreach, and teaching. It provides a ranking of overall SDG performance as well as on each of the 17 Global Goals.

According to the 2021 rankings, released on 21 April, the highest-scoring institution is the University of Manchester in the UK. The Times Higher Education calls UK, Australia, and Canada the “golden triangle” of countries that scored most highly overall. The publication reports that some of the metrics used in the rankings are “considered ‘just good practice’ in the UK, such as public access to facilities or engagement in outreach.”

Universities in other countries rank first on specific SDGs, such as:

• SDG 2 (zero hunger): Metropolitan Autonomous University in Mexico;
• SDG 5 (gender equality): Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University in Saudi Arabia;
• SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy): King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi in Thailand; and
• SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth): University of Johannesburg in South Africa.

The Times Higher Education reports that the most improvement in the rankings between 2020 and 2021 was found in universities in Portugal – due to its increased scores on SDGs 3, 16, and 17 – and South Korea – which had improved the most on SDGs 4, 5, and 10. According to the article, Portuguese universities have increasingly made sustainable development part of their strategic plans and established sustainability offices. They also created the Portuguese Sustainable Campus Network to help university staff exchange knowledge and best practices. In South Korea, meanwhile, universities have followed the lead set by the government in the Green New Deal and Digital New Deal.

In related news, in late March 2021, the presidents of 56 universities in 30 countries signed a commitment to work together to meet the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda. The signatories agreed to a five-part initiative:

• Implement the concept of sustainable development across activities and operations;  • Improve sustainable development competence of students, faculty and staff; • Support a wider spectrum of scientific research, including blue-sky discovery and transdisciplinary research, in response to global challenges; • Work with global partners to provide innovative solutions and leveraging technology; and • Uphold open science to facilitate constructive cross-border collaboration to solve specific problems.

The leaders were gathered at an online forum hosted by Zhejiang University (ZJU) in China on ‘The Role of Universities in the 2030 Agenda.’ Individual universities highlighted their SDG-related initiatives during the meeting. ZJU announced a plan that includes making sustainability a part of campus culture, becoming a leader of low-carbon action, and turning its campuses into “resource-conserving and environmentally friendly living laboratories.”

Also providing inspiration for universities, a booklet from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) contains specific ideas drawing on behavioral science to  change behaviors on campus. The publication provides a list of “green nudges” to encourage more sustainable practices among students and staff. [ Press release on rankings ] [ Article on most improved universities ] [ Full rankings ] [ Joint statement of university leaders ] [ Article on university leaders forum ]

related posts

Sdg knowledge hub’s top 10 most read stories of 2022 11 january 2023 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (413685) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, sdg knowledge hub’s top 10 most read stories of ... 11 january 2023 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (413685) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, adaptation finance update: global commission catalyzes financial resources for action 8 october 2019 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (394953) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, adaptation finance update: global commission catal... 8 october 2019 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (394953) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, ministers pledge to increase efforts to reduce methane emissions 23 november 2022 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (413339) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, ministers pledge to increase efforts to reduce met... 23 november 2022 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (413339) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, adaptation finance update: green bonds on the rise but will adaptation projects benefit 3 may 2018 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (366831) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, adaptation finance update: green bonds on the rise... 3 may 2018 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (366831) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, first-ever chemicals and waste youth forum meets during iccm5 4 october 2023 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (416960) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, first-ever chemicals and waste youth forum meets d... 4 october 2023 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (416960) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, community of practice discusses adoption of limits, laws on lead in paint 24 september 2020 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (403651) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |, community of practice discusses adoption of limits... 24 september 2020 0 then 4 else u.id end as user_id , u.user_email as user_email , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' when left(u.user_login,2) = 'z_' or u.id=64 then 'guest-authors' else 'thematic-experts' end as user_link_role , case when u.user_nicename like '%-account' then '' else u.user_nicename end as user_link_slug , p.pid, p.uid from wp_2_posts_authors p join wp_users u on u.id=case when find_in_set(p.post_author,'228,8,9,22,421,373')>0 then 4 else p.post_author end where p.id in (403651) ) pu join wp_usermeta fn on pu.user_id = fn.user_id join wp_usermeta ln on pu.user_id = ln.user_id join wp_usermeta dl on pu.user_id = dl.user_id join wp_usermeta ur on pu.user_id = ur.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'description_short') ds on pu.user_id = ds.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_prefix') px on pu.user_id = px.user_id left join (select * from wp_usermeta where meta_key = 'user_suffix') sx on pu.user_id = sx.user_id where fn.meta_key = 'first_name' and ln.meta_key = 'last_name' and dl.meta_key = 'description' and ur.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' order by pu.pid desc, pu.uid asc;--> |.

The SDG Update compiles the news, commentary and upcoming events that are published on the SDG Knowledge Hub each day, delivering information on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to your inbox.

Welcome to IISD's SDG Knowledge Hub

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Press Office

Times Higher Impact Rankings 2022

University ranked first in the uk for sustainable development.

Published on: 28 April 2022

Newcastle University’s ongoing work towards the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) has been recognised in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings 2022.

First in the rankings nationally, Newcastle has also been placed eighth in the world, moving up from its position of third in the UK and 15 th in the world in 2021.

The Times Higher Education Impact Rankings assess over 1,500 universities from around the world on action taken towards the UNSDGs. Institutions are evaluated across the areas of research, stewardship, outreach and teaching.

Professor Chris Day , Vice-Chancellor and President, Newcastle University, said:

“We are absolutely delighted to be ranked first in the UK – and eighth in the world - in this year’s Times Higher Education Impact Rankings.

“They represent the very best of what a University can be - working together to respond to urgent global challenges – and our performance today is a testament to the hard work and commitment of all colleagues and students at Newcastle University.

“This year’s rankings are particularly significant. We are increasingly seeing at first hand the positive impact that universities have in their cities and regions and the global significance that can be achieved through strong collaboration with partners.

“And as we start to move out of the pandemic and respond to other global challenges, universities will be crucial in building a fairer, stronger and more sustainable future.

 “At Newcastle we have been working hard to embed our commitments to Social and Environmental Justice in everything we do and I am immensely proud of what we have achieved today.”

Fighting for climate justice

Briana Gordhan , Newcastle University Students’ Union Welfare & Equality Officer, adds: “New generations are growing up with eco-anxiety, feeling overwhelmed by the real and devastating impact of climate change. At Newcastle University, staff and students approach this storm together, continually collaborating on ideas and initiatives. Being part of a university committed to fighting for climate justice inspires us and gives us hope for what the future could be and its incredible to see these continued efforts publicly celebrated in this way.”

Entering across all 17 UNSDGs, Newcastle University scored highly in a number of areas including 8th place globally for its work towards SDG11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, which includes collaboration in the region and work towards arts and culture. The recognition reflects the city’s coordinated efforts, which led to Newcastle becoming the first city in the UK where all anchor institutions declared a Climate Emergency. Newcastle University works closely with partners in the city including the NHS Trust, City Council and Northumbria University through the Net Zero Taskforce, which is co-chaired by Hayley Fowler, Professor of Climate Change Impacts at Newcastle University.

Pam Smith, Chief Executive of Newcastle City Council, said: “We are incredibly fortunate in Newcastle to have two internationally-renowned universities that have a hugely positive impact on the city, and I would like to congratulate Newcastle University for being named the UK’s highest ranking university in THE Impact Rankings for 2022.

“It is of little surprise that their strengths in areas of sustainability and climate action have been highlighted in the rankings, with Newcastle University playing a key role in helping to shape our city’s wider plans for a cleaner and greener future for residents, students and visitors alike. There are countless examples of this commitment on show across the city, whether it’s the success of the forward-thinking Helix site, or Newcastle University’s leading role in declaring a climate emergency in the city and its position on our Net Zero task force.

“Newcastle University plays a significant role in so much of what makes our city such an attractive place to come and live and I’m delighted their success has been recognised in this way.”

Working together to respond to urgent global challenges

The University has a long-standing relationship with cultural venues in the city and the region. The University’s Great North Museum: Hancock and Hatton Gallery, managed in partnership with Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums, house exhibitions that are free for all to access and are integrated with the University’s research and education work. The University’s Centre for Research Excellence in Heritage brings together experts across a wide range of disciplines to deliver heritage research that will have an impact now and in the future.

Keith Merrin, Director, Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums (TWAM), said:

“We are very proud to work in partnership with Newcastle University and congratulate our colleagues on this well-deserved success.

“The Great North Museum: Hancock and Hatton Gallery are part of the cultural fabric of Newcastle. It is thanks to the University’s investment and custodianship that these vitally important spaces of curiosity, learning and debate are free for everyone to enjoy.”

The University’s practitioners are working with communities in the North East and around the world to explore climate change. They’re using art, film, photography, creative writing and more to engage young and old with the challenges facing our planet.

Phil Baty, Chief Knowledge Officer at THE, said:

“The Times Higher Education Impact Rankings are unique in examining universities’ impact on society, through each of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This year over 1,500 institutions from 110 countries took part in the ranking, stepping forward to demonstrate their commitment to helping to create a sustainable future for us all, and Times Higher Education examined data across hundreds of metrics and measurements, covering teaching, research, outreach, and indeed universities’ stewardship of their own resources – including their people.

“So Newcastle University’s position in the world top ten, and as number one in the UK, is an outstanding achievement. One of Newcastle’s great strengths is in SDG 11 – sustainable cities and communities – so the university stands out as a truly civic university, producing world class research to the benefit of all, but with a clear commitment to serving its local community too. That’s a wonderful social purpose.”

The University’s UNSDG Committee, chaired by Professor Phil McGowan, works towards raising awareness of the goals and placing their core principles at the heart of university activity.

The Global Challenges Academy brings together University colleagues and partners to find evidence-based solutions to the world’s most pressing development challenges and help realise the UNSDGs through Newcastle University’s world-leading research.

The University is ranked 10 th in the world in SDG12: Responsible Consumption and Production, and 26 th for work towards SDG13 Climate Action. Since the launch of the University Climate Action Plan in June 2021, the University has accelerated action towards tackling climate change and is investing £15 million per year on projects to decarbonise its use of heat and power towards meeting its commitment of net zero by 2030.  

During COP26, Newcastle University launched Climate Leadership scholarships as part of ongoing work to embed climate change education across the institution, helping students to prepare for their roles in work and wider society.

The rankings highlight Newcastle’s global research impact and commitment to issues of social and climate justice. It is the only UK university to secure two UKRI-funded Global Challenges Research Hubs – The Living Deltas Hub and Water Security and Sustainable Development Hub.

Latest News

A citizen science project reveals that most boat users along the North-East coast do not disturb dolphins and are often rewarded with close-up encounters.

Professor Sinéad Morrissey has been chosen as the recipient of the prestigious Seamus Heaney Award, Japan

Equity Diversity & Inclusion

Times higher education impact rankings, the times higher education (the) university impact rankings measure the progress of universities working to achieve the united nations’ sustainable development goals (sdgs).   .

The Impact Rankings are the first global attempt to measure university progress specifically around the SDGs adopted by all United Nations States in 2015. The SDGs provide an outline for improving outcomes for people and the planet by working together in a global partnership. Universities have a critical role in the achievement of the SDGs globally. Our unique position as creators and disseminators of knowledge and as key drivers of innovation, economic development, and societal wellbeing put us in a position to lead and effect change. 

2023 Impact Rankings

UNSW ranked =18 th in the world out of 1,591 participating institutions, up from =55 th in 2022. The University secured 10 top 100, 9 top 50 places and 3 top ten places – our best result to date.

UNSW’s three strongest areas under the THE rankings methodology are: 

The University's meteoric rise from =39 th to =2 nd in SDG 13 Climate Action,  from =42 nd to =9 th in SDG11 Sustainable Cities and Communities and from =72 nd to =10 th in SDG 15 Life on Land reflects our world class and pioneering research, our strong partnerships and our significant contributions  through   campus operations,   research and outreach in these areas.  

The successful implementation of the 2019-2021 Environmental Sustainability Plan and its new 2022-2024 iteration have been key to UNSW’s operational sustainability and have hugely contributed to our success in the rankings, including our particularly strong performance in SDG 13 and SDG 11.

UNSW’s other top 50   performances   include:  

• SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation (=37)
• SDG 7   Affordable and Clean Energy   (=17)   
• SDG 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (=50)
• SDG 12   Responsible Consumption and Production (=25)  
• SDG 14 Life Below Water   (=24)    

Read the full article

2022 Impact Rankings

UNSW  ranked 55 th in the world out of 1,406 institutions , up from 96 th in 2021. The University secured 10 top 100 and eight top 50 places.

UNSW’s   three strongest areas under the rankings methodology , consistent with 2021 :

The University’s highest ranking of 17 was achieved in SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation and SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy.

UNSW’s ranking in SDG 6   reflects   UNSW ’ s contributions to clean water and   sanitation   through   campus operations,   research and outreach. It is also strengthened through participation in a number of key initiatives   such   as the Australian Water Partnership (AWP),   the Connected Waters Initiative (CWI), and a range of ongoing, long-term collaborations with local and global government and industry partners.  

UNSW’s other top 100   performances   include:  

• SDG 2 Zero Hunger (=46)
• SDG 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (87)
• SDG 13 Climate Action (39)  
• SDG 14 Life Below Water   (29)   
• SDG 15   Life on   Land   (=73)   

UNSW’s meteoric rise from =59 to 17 in SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy  was impacted by the university’s pioneering research in the development of solar photovoltaic technology, enabling the University to switch to 100% solar energy in 2020 under a world first Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

2021 Impact Rankings

UNSW placed in the top 100 for seven Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), an increase from four last year, and ranked 96 in the world overall out of 1,117 institutions.

UNSW Sydney ranked 8th in the world in the 2021 THE Impact Rankings for its work towards ensuring availability and sustainable management of clean water and sanitation.  

The University’s high ranking in SDG 6 reflects UNSW’s contributions to clean water and sanitation through campus operations, research and outreach, and strengthened through active UNSW participation in a number of key initiatives such as the Australian Water Partnership (AWP), the Connected Waters Initiative (CWI), and a range of ongoing, long term collaborations with local and global government and industry partners, such as with WaterNSW, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the Mekong River Commission, as well as with NGOs such as Z-NET Uralla and the Love Mercy Foundation in Uganda. UNSW on campus contributions toward SDG 6 are also underpinned by the  Environmental Sustainability Plan 2019-21 .

Read the full  article 

2020 Impact Rankings

UNSW ranked 66 in the world overall out of 766 institutions from more than 75 countries.

UNSW Sydney ranked first in the world for its work toward efficient use of resources and the minimisation of waste. Along with the top ranking in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, Responsible Consumption and Production, UNSW placed fourth in the world for SDG 7, Affordable and Clean Energy. In total, UNSW was placed in the top 100 for four SDGs, with equality and gender equity accounting for the University’s two other highly-ranked areas. 

The University’s high rankings in SDG 7 and SDG 12 reflect UNSW’s contributions to clean energy and resource efficiency through campus operations, research and outreach and strengthened through the launch of the  Environmental Sustainability Plan 2019-21 .

Read the full article

How the ranking is calculated 

Universities receive a score and ranking for each submitted SDG. The score for each SDG considers a range of indicators, including a university’s research performance, campus management and operations, and community partnerships and collaborations.  The overall rank is then generated from the score for mandatory SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals, plus the three strongest of the other SDGs for which it provided data.   

According to the THE methodology, the score from each SDG is scaled so that the highest score in each SDG in the overall calculation is 100 and the lowest score is 0. This is to adjust for minor differences in the scoring range in each SDG and to ensure that universities are treated equitably, whichever SDGs they have provided data for.

It is these scaled scores that THE use to determine which SDGs a university has performed most strongly in; they may not be the SDGs in which the university is ranked highest or has scored highest based on unscaled scores.  

More information

Sustainability Matters

Explore UNSW's contributions to the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, designed to tackle the world’s most pressing challenges, such as ending poverty and hunger, climate change, the reduction of inequalities and more. 

Find out more about the initiatives and reports UNSW use to assess progress and show performance.

Publications & Reports

Access reports and publications associated with UNSW's commitments and contributions to each of the 17 SDGs.

Enhancing sustainable development goals or promoting universities? An analysis of the times higher education impact rankings

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

ISSN : 1467-6370

Article publication date: 16 June 2022

Issue publication date: 19 December 2022

This study aims to analyse and evaluate the methodology followed by the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (THE-IR), as well as the coverage obtained and the data offered by this ranking, to determine if its methodology reflects the degree of sustainability of universities, and whether their results are accurate enough to be used as a data source for research and strategic decision-making.

Design/methodology/approach

A summative content analysis of the THE-IR methodology was conducted, paying special attention to the macro-structure (university score) and micro-structure (sustainable development goals [SDG] score) levels of the research-related metrics. Then, the data published by THE-IR in the 2019, 2020 and 2021 edition was collected via web scraping. After that, all the data was statistically analysed to find out performance rates, SDGs’ success rates and geographic distributions. Finally, a pairwise comparison of the THE-IR against the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR) was conducted to calculate overlap measures.

Severe inconsistencies in the THE-IR methodology have been found, offering a distorted view of sustainability in higher education institutions, allowing different strategic actions to participate in the ranking (interested, strategic, committed and outperformer universities). The observed growing number of universities from developing countries and the absence of world-class universities reflect an opportunity for less-esteemed institutions, which might have a chance to gain reputation based on their efforts towards sustainability, but from a flawed ranking which should be avoided for decision-making.

Practical implications

University managers can be aware of the THE-IR validity when demanding informed decisions. University ranking researchers and practitioners can access a detailed analysis of the THE-IR to determine its properties as a ranking and use raw data from THE-IR in other studies or reports. Policy makers can use the main findings of this work to avoid misinterpretations when developing public policies related to the evaluation of the contribution of universities to the SDGs. Otherwise, these results can help the ranking publisher to improve some of the inconsistencies found in this study.

Social implications

Given the global audience of the THE-IR, this work contributes to minimising the distorted vision that the THE-IR projects about sustainability in higher education institutions, and alerts governments, higher education bodies and policy makers to take precautions when making decisions based on this ranking.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this contribution is the first providing an analysis of the THE-IR’s methodology. The faults in the methodology, the coverage at the country-level and the overlap between THE-IR and THE-WUR have unveiled the existence of specific strategies in the participation of universities, of interest both for experts in university rankings and SDGs.

• University rankings
• Higher education institutions
• Sustainable development goals
• Academic marketing
• Development goals
• Impact Ranking

Bautista-Puig, N. , Orduña-Malea, E. and Perez-Esparrells, C. (2022), "Enhancing sustainable development goals or promoting universities? An analysis of the times higher education impact rankings", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0309

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Nuria Bautista-Puig, Enrique Orduña Malea and Carmen Perez-Esparrells.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 interlinked goals that emerged as a global strategy to solve critical problems (e.g. climate change, poverty) and emphasised the importance of evidence-based decision-making. SDGs establish a defined horizon for the millennium development goals (MDGs) by enlarging their scope, reach and engagement in their creation and implementation ( Fisher and Fukuda-Parr, 2019 ). Agenda 2030, approved in the Rio + 20 conference in 2012, is a 15-year plan that must be embedded in the decision-making of governments, businesses, universities and society at large. The plan encompasses a roadmap of targets and indicators for aligning both developing and developed countries on the path of sustainable development. SDGs refer to policy demands across a wide variety of topics (e.g. health, gender equality). It is therefore challenging to develop specific indicators or tools that can value the goals’ contributions or impacts ( Rafols et al. , 2021 ; Siegel and Bastos Lima, 2020 ).

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are drivers for the achievement of the full set of goals, through their role in human formation, knowledge production and innovation ( Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021 ). As such, universities stand out as models of sustainability ( Wright, 2004 ) due to their societal responsibility in training future professionals and leaders and in stimulating public awareness of sustainability ( Collins, 2017 ). By assuming the role of “agents of change”, HEIs are therefore pivotal to the search for solutions to current environmental problems ( Hesselbarth and Schaltegger, 2014 ). In this regard, considering the three core university missions (research, teaching and knowledge transfer), these institutions can address sustainable development from different perspectives or dimensions: university governance (e.g. vision, missions, strategic plans), campus operations (e.g. energy use, waste), community outreach (e.g. exchange programmes) and assessment and reporting (e.g. dissemination of sustainability results achieved) ( Cortese, 2003 ; Lozano et al. , 2015 ). In addition, developing general educative actions (e.g. programmes for consciousness-raising regarding climate change, hunger, gender) and formulating proper research questions ( Ligozat et al. , 2020 ) are also advisable actions.

As proof of this commitment, the number of HEIs that are signing declarations and agreements (e.g. the Talloires Declaration, the Halifax Declaration, the SDG Accord and the Abuja Declaration) designed to foster sustainable development (SD) and education for sustainable development has increased over time ( Lozano et al. , 2015 ). Linked to the sustainability actions, the publication of reports is another instrument for institutions to disclose and publicise their commitment to sustainability and, by extension, the SDGs ( Caputo et al. , 2021 ). However, universities have been slow to adopt sustainability practices ( Lozano, 2006 ; Velazquez et al. , 2006 ) due to a resistance to change and a lack of awareness, interest and funding. For HEIs to fully engage, achieve and promote the SDGs, they must overcome the lack of long-term policies, insufficient resources ( De La Poza et al. , 2021 ) and the absence of specific targets for countries in which higher education requires reform and rebuilding ( Heleta and Bagus, 2021 ).

In parallel with this situation, the literature related to sustainability and higher education has been continuously evolving, building different areas of interest. Such areas include the relation between universities and specific sustainable topics, such as urban planning, energy efficiency or climate change ( Figure 1 , cluster in red) or the relationship between sustainability and education ( Figure 1 , cluster in blue), training, students ( Figure 1 , cluster in green) and organisation, management and public relations ( Figure 1 , cluster in yellow) [ 1 ]. Therefore, all the sustainability dimensions are addressed. Regardless of the field, a considerable number of publications that include SDG-related keywords [ 2 ] can be observed in Scopus data (from 109 publications in 2015 to 2,904 publications in 2020), which could reconfigure these clusters in the short term.

Given that HEIs are key actors within the context of global sustainability, understanding their contribution to the SDGs remains crucial. However, while there are an increasing number of universities aligning their activities with the SDGs, to document and evidence the wide variety of activities relevant to sustainable development being undertaken by universities is still needed ( Chankseliani and McCowan, 2021 ). In the same train of thought, appropriate tools to measure this contribution have not yet been developed. Moreover, it is important to design alternative initiatives or rankings that measure universities’ contributions to sustainability goals, solve methodological problems and provide data collection at the global level.

specific data sources (i.e. biased towards the Global North);

the research dimension ( Safón, 2019 ); and

the arbitrary weighting used to rank institutions (Gadd, 2021).

In addition, those global rankings do not take societal aspects into consideration (e.g. open science initiatives, sustainability or diversity), thus limiting the use of rankings in determining whether HEIs contribute to the SDGs. This leads the scientometric community to advocate for fair and responsible rankings ( Gadd, 2020 ). The translation of the policy language goals into performance indicators has been indicated to be a primary concern ( Ràfols, 2020 ) because quantitative metrics might miss many of the values of the targets ( Unterhalter, 2019 ; Torabian, 2019 ).

Despite the wide variety of university rankings ( Orduna-Malea and Perez-Esparrells, 2021 ), those valuing sustainability in its broader sense (green rankings) are scarce and represent a change in ranking designs ( De La Poza et al. , 2021 ). The most popular ranking was the GreenMetric World University Ranking, a global sustainability ranking developed by the Universitas Indonesia (UI) in 2010 that values the following dimensions: setting and infrastructure (15%), energy and climate change (21%), waste (18%), water (10%), transportation (18%) and education (18%). However, its simplicity has been considered a crucial limitation in terms of its “categories and indicators in comparison with other systems and the demands of the data types required are generally low for participants and less empirical than those used in other systems” ( Lauder et al. , 2015 ). Galleli et al. (2021) compare this green ranking with the Times Higher Education – World University Rankings (THE-WUR), finding a significant gap in the specificity of the two rankings. Other ranking and evaluation tools related to the commitment of universities (at a national or regional level) to sustainability have emerged. Nonetheless, these initiatives are geographically centred in the Anglo-Saxon regions (e.g. STARS and AASHE STARS at the USA, and People and Planet Green League in the UK).

First introduced in 2015, the SDG index was the first global ranking system translating the SDG narrative to measure the contribution of universities at the country level while using a wide range of appropriate indicators for each goal ( Lafortune et al. , 2018 ). However, collection data limitations, unmeasurable metrics and the low accuracy of the composite index jeopardised its utility ( Diaz-Sarachaga et al. , 2018 ). The Times Higher Education Impact Ranking (THE-IR) was launched in 2019 as the first global ranking at the institution level aimed at measuring the contribution of HEIs in each of the 17 SDGs.

Despite the youth of this ranking (the third edition appeared in 2021), THE-IR has already aroused interest in the higher education community, with both detractors and followers. Torabian (2019) considers this ranking as a positive move that demonstrates HEIs (and the broader public) want to address SD. However, the pursuit of certain indicators or rankings (e.g. in terms of research output) might encourage practices that conflict with the goals themselves. Cardozo et al. (2021) analysed the 2020 edition and found 16.67% of Ibero-American universities were indexed in the overall ranking. SDG8, “Decent work and economic growth”, was the goal most addressed (9.81%), followed by SDG3, “Good health and well-being” (9.68%) and SDG4, “Quality education” (7.69%). Iskandaryan (2020) described how one Russian university is implementing SDG4, while De La Poza et al. (2021) assessed the level of reporting and alignment of SDG achievements with the overall THE-WUR ranking score. They found that the highest-ranked universities are more committed to SDG9, “Industry, innovation and infrastructure” and SDG16, “Peace, justice and strong institutions”. Finally, Calderon (2021) offered a critical overview of this ranking and suggested that it needs to be contextualised, given the worldwide scope of SDGs, according to a regional or national basis that allows a like-to-like comparison between countries.

As with any other ranking, THE-IR should be analysed to ascertain whether its methodology reflect the sustainability degree of universities, and their results are accurate enough to be used as a data source for research and strategic decision-making. While THE-IR has been analysed in the literature, these studies do not include a comprehensive analysis of the THE-IR methodology. De la Poza et al. (2021) compared THE-IR and THE-WUR to discover whether the performance on one SDG in THE-IR is related to the scores obtained in THE-WUR, considering universities’ regions and disciplines. However, they did not cover the raw overlap between THE-IR and THE-WUR (which might also reveal not only a potential influence of the latter on the former but also the existence of specific geopolitical strategies to obtain visibility in this ranking). Finally, previous literature has not included all available editions. Given the high variability between the first and second editions (due to the incorporation of all SDGs in the second edition instead of the 11 SDGs considered in the first one), the inclusion of the third edition seems necessary to offer a wider and more accurate picture of this ranking and its methodology.

Therefore, this study aims to analyse and evaluate the THE-IR methodology, coverage and scores offered.

2. Times Higher Education Impact Rankings: a methodological approach

THE-IR follows a complex methodology that includes numerous metrics and composite indicators that should be briefly detailed to comprehend and appropriately contextualise the main results offered in this study. This ranking intends to measure the contribution of universities against each of the 17 goals. This ranking includes all universities teaching at either undergraduate or postgraduate levels; no minimum research requirements are required. The methodology consists of a micro level (scores for each SDG) and a macro-level (creation of an overall score).

At the micro level, each SDG aims to capture the contribution of universities across four wide areas: research, teaching, stewardship (i.e. universities as custodians of significant resources, including not only physical resources but also human resources), and outreach (i.e. work that universities undertake with their local, regional, national and international communities). To accomplish this, a set of metrics is assigned to each SDG. These metrics are grouped into three different categories (research metrics, continuous metrics, evidence metrics) based on the nature and purpose of each metric ( Table 1 ). While research metrics are derived from an external product (Scopus), the remaining metrics (continuous and evidential material) derive from institutional data provided privately and directly by the HEIs to the ranking publisher.

Following this design, each SDG is organised into different groups of metrics. The first group is always related to research metrics (27% out of the total SDG score). The remaining groups (composed of continuous and evidence metrics) depend on each SDG. At the end, a final score (from 0 to 100) is obtained for each SDG.

At the macro-level, only four SDGs are weighted to build the overall score. SDG17 is measured for all universities (22% of the overall score), while the remaining three SDGs selected are those achieving the top three highest scores for each university (26% each), excluding SDG17.

A summative content analysis ( Harwood and Garry, 2003 ) and a descriptive statistical analysis and have been used to accomplish with the objectives of this work.

The summative content analysis aims to analyse documents and texts that seeks to quantify their content in terms of predetermined categories and in a systematic and replicable manner. In this particular case, Impact Rankings Methodology 2021 v.1.3 ( THE Impact Ranking , 2021) has been inspected to determine the use of research-related metrics, specifically the types of indicators used per SDG, their weight in each SDG, and their breadth of use throughout the 17 SDGs. This analysis was limited to the research-related metrics for the following reasons. First, these metrics are bibliometric indicators that have been provided by a commercial database and extensively analysed in the bibliometric literature, therefore providing clear guidance in evaluating their appropriateness. Second, these metrics are transversal in the THE-IR methodology (research metrics is a fixed category used to measure each SDG). Third, these metrics represent a fixed weight of 27% of the overall score for each SDG, rendering their influence on the final score noteworthy. Continuous and evidential metrics have not been directly analysed because they are provided by HEIs privately.

The statistical descriptive analysis is used to describe the characteristics of a sample or data set. In this particular case, data from all available editions of the THE-IR (2019, 2020 and 2021) were considered. All data was directly collected in May 2021 from the official website through web scrapping. This same procedure was followed to collect the data related to the THE-WUR for the same ranking editions. For each university, the university name, the university region (country), and all performance scores were extracted and analysed through descriptive statistics. Pearson correlations were used to calculate the stability of the distribution of universities providing specific SDG data over the different ranking editions. Then, a pairwise comparison method was used to compare both rankings. Countries' information was matched with geographical regions according to a list provided by the United Nations [ 3 ]. In addition, information regarding the designation of “developing” and “developed” areas was also included. ArcGIS [ 4 ] software was used to plot the coverage and overlap data maps. Venn Diagram Plotter [ 5 ] software was used for creating the Venn diagram.

4.1 Analysis of the impact rankings methodology

The THE-IR exhibits a ranking design that raises several concerns at both the macro and micro levels. At the macro-level structure, the consideration of only four out of 17 SDGs is debatable as it allows a university to achieve the top position with zero values for 13 SDGs. However, the major concern is that only one SDG (SDG17: “Partnership for the goals”) is common for all universities, while the remaining scores are related to the top three SDGs with a better score in each university. This means that universities will be compared against different SDGs and mixed into the same classification. While not explicitly expressed in the Berlin Principles [ 6 ], this procedure breaks the effective practices in building university rankings.

Another consequence of the method followed by this ranking is that longitudinal analyses are not permitted as universities might be scored in relation to different SDGs over the editions. For example, Trinity College Dublin (Ireland) is evaluated in relation to SDG5, SDG9 and SDG11 in 2020 but to SDG3, SDG9 and SDG16 in 2021. The University of Bahrain constitutes an even more extreme case as all SDGs evaluated were different (SDG2, SDG4 and SDG11 in 2020; SDG5, SDG8 and SDG16 in 2021). This is not an isolated phenomenon as only 23% of all those universities ranked both in the 2020 and 2021 THE-IR editions (695 institutions) were evaluated through the same four SDGs.

This means that the overall score for one university might be generated with data completely different to that used in the previous ranking edition. This could partly explain the abrupt position changes several universities have exhibited in successive editions. Such examples, all of which reduce the reliability of the ranking, include France’s Aix-Marseille University (from 20 th in 2020 to 201–300 th in 2021), Denmark’s Aalto University (from 47 th in 2020 to 201–300 th in 2021), Saudi Arabia’s Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University (from 401–600 th in 2020 to 27 th in 2021) or Indonesia’s Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (401–600 th in 2020 to 64 th in 2021).

Moreover, the weights assigned to each of the four SDGs are subjective and not explicitly justified. Because SDG17 is a more generic and controversial goal, its higher weight in the final score is unjustified. These arbitrary weights break Principle 9 ( Make the weights assigned to different indicators [if used] prominent and limit changes to them) included in the Berlin Principles on Ranking Higher Education Institutions [ 7 ]. While some voices have criticised these principles as being decoupled from actual ranking practices ( Barron, 2017 ), updating these principles would uncover a greater number of inconsistencies.

The final scores include data ranges for some universities. While the use of ranges is generally a useful practice to minimise the use of rigid scores, as well as to tolerate margins of error in data, excessively wide ranges produce other side effects. For example, THE-IR’s 2021 edition reveals 103 universities with an overall score of 9.2–36.4, which makes the indicated value useless.

At the micro level, the scores obtained for each SDG can also admit data ranges, finding the same limitation as that mentioned above. For example, 103 universities obtained a score of 0.3–29.0 for SDG12 in the THE-IR’s 2021 edition. Even more extreme behaviour was found concerning the University of Alkafeel (Iraq), which obtained a score of 0.1–38.4 for SDG7. It is unclear how the overall score is calculated when the four SDGs considered have scores with such wide ranges.

The mixture of metrics to measure each SDG introduces another discussion point. The score in each SDG mixes indicators related to “research on topics related to the sustainable development objectives”, and metrics related to “the sustainability of the university as a whole institution”. Furthermore, that one university conducts research on topics related to those goals does not necessarily imply its researchers are contributing to the development of the SDGs or working sustainably.

The number of indicators used by SDGs and the distribution of indicators by type (research, continuous and evidence metrics) is otherwise not homogeneous, which makes possible the existence of metrics with extremely different weights in the final SDG score. For example, SDG4 (“industry, innovation and infrastructure”) is built upon only four indicators, while SDG11 (“sustainable cities and communities”) is built upon 19 indicators ( Table 2 ).

The raw methodology includes 231 different indicators. All 48 research indicators used for each of the 17 SDGs are displayed in Table 3 accompanied by their specific weight in each of the SDGs measured (definitions of these metrics are available in the supplementary material on URL: https://doi.org/10.21950/HSFRDH .

These results raise the following concerns: A co-authorship indicator is introduced in the measurement of three SDGs: cooperation with developing countries (measured twice, in SDG1, “poverty” and SDG17, “partnership for the goals”) and gender (SDG5, “gender equality”). However, co-authorship is not considered in the remaining SDGs.

Each SDG (from 1 to 16) includes a productivity indicator (referred to as Publications in Table 1 ), which is tailored in each SDG by using topic-based queries in Scopus ( Iskandaryan, 2020 ). While this approach is topic-sensitive and denotes a substantial effort, the use of queries from Scopus could be controversial as different query approaches can alter the resulting country rankings ( Armitage et al. , 2020 ). SDG17 includes this same indicator but also includes all publications regardless of the topic. Therefore, the same publication can be measured in at least two SDGs by default. Otherwise, this indicator exhibits different weights: 13.55% (SDG17; “partnership for the goals”), 13% (SDG8, “decent work”), 11.60% (SDG9, “industry”), 10% (SDG1, “poverty”) and 7% in the remaining objectives. This variability is not justified. In addition, this indicator is not normalised according to the size of the university. Otherwise, several principles (e.g. Principles 2, 4, 6 and 9) included in the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics are somewhat compromised ( Hicks et al. , 2015 ).

Concerning the measurement of citation-based impact, a normalised indicator (Field Weighted Citation Impact) is used. However, its usage is limited to a small number of SDGs (3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 17). The absence of the indicator in other SDGs seems to be not clearly justified.

A journal-level metric (Citescore) is mainly used in this ranking. However, it is excluded in four SDGs (1, 3, 9 and 17). While the generic nature of SDG17 can explain its absence, it remains unclear why Citescore is not used in the remaining three SDGs. Moreover, the weight of this indicator is equal to 10% for all SDGs except for SDG8 (“decent work and economic growth”), where it is equal to 14%. The methodology details that this indicator actually measures the proportion of a university’s publications that, according to the Citescore metric, appear in the top 10% of journals. The arbitrariness of this threshold (10%), the absence of discipline filtering (Citescore is a metric without field-normalisation) and the nature of multidisciplinary journals render this count of publications debatable.

An altmetric measure (paper views) is included in SDG3 (“health”) and SDG4 (“education”), but it does not appear in any other SDG. The use of Scopus as a data source might indicate that PlumX is being used as an altmetric data source, but no explicit information has been found. The inclusion of this indicator, with a final weight of 10% in the overall SDG score, is therefore not justified.

Finally, an extra indicator measuring patents-citing publications (referred to as citing patents) is used in SDG9 (“industry, innovation and infrastructure”), but it is outside the research indicators group. This decision is also debatable as the parameter measures citations received by publications from patents. A similar indicator (clinical citations) used in SDG3 (“health”) is otherwise included in the research indicators group. The citing patents indicator, as a citation-based indicator, also reveals a transversal nature, which makes it appropriate to be measured in all SDGs, as the other bibliometric indicators used.

4.2 Institutional participation

The participation of universities in the THE-IR has increased over the editions. In 2020, 768 universities with data in at least one SDG were ranked (out of 859). For the 2021 edition, up to 1,117 universities with data in at least one SDG were ranked (out of 1,240). The number of SDGs for which universities submitted data varied significantly between institutions.

Considering the 2021 edition, we can find four different types of universities. First, the interested universities (9.5 out of all universities submitting information). These universities submitted data for less than 4 SDGs. Consequently, they are not ranked in the overall score. Second, the strategic universities (36.9% of universities). These institutions submit data for a small number of SDGs, around the minimum required (between 4 and 6 SDGs). Third, the committed universities. These institutions provide data for a large quantity of SDGs (between 7 and 15). Finally, the outperformer universities. These institutions submit data for almost all available SDGs ( Figure 2 ).

The distribution of universities per number of SDGs provided shows a slight change from 2020 to 2021 ( R = 0.62; alpha value= 0.01). Comparing the 2020 and 2021 editions, we can see an increase in the raw number of universities providing only the four required SDGs (200 universities in 2021), which constitutes a particularly frequent action, followed by those universities providing data on 16 SDGs (184 in 2021). There was an important decrease in institutions that provided data for all the 17 SDGs from 2020 (19.1% of all submitting universities) to 2021 (7.4%).

The number of universities providing data on each SDG (referred to as “providing universities” in Table 4 ) remains constant for the 2020 and 2021 editions ( R = 0.95), as well as the number of universities where the corresponding SDG is used in their overall score (referred to as “measured universities” in Table 4 ) ( R = 0.99; alpha value = 0.01). We can observe that SDG4 (“quality education”), SDG5 (“gender equality”) and SDG10 (“reduced inequalities”) are the SDGs most frequently submitted by universities. On the contrary, SDG2 (“hunger”) and SDG14 (“life below water”) are the SDGs less frequently provided by universities. Otherwise, an anomalous behaviour is detected for SDG2, with a significant drop in the number of universities providing data on this SDG from 2020 (33.9% of all universities) to 2021 (10.9%). However, SDG2 is used in the overall score for the 83% of universities providing data on this SDG, thus exhibiting an elevated success rate ( Table 4 ).

4.3 Geopolitical analysis

Results confirm an increase in the participation of countries in the THE-IR, from 76 in 2019 to 94 in 2021, exceeding the number of countries in the THE-WUR and the UI GreenMetric ranking for the first time ( Table 5 ). Complete data on the evolution of the number of universities by country in the three editions of THE-IR and THE-WUR is available in the supplementary material.

Japan and Russia are the most represented countries in the THE-IR’s 2021 edition (both with 75 universities). These countries are followed by the UK (50) and Turkey (49) [ 8 ]. The increasing presence of several countries in the different editions of the THE-IR is remarkable. For example, Russia included 45 new universities in 2021 that were not included in the 2019 edition, India had 36 new universities, Iraq 34 and Brazil 23.

The overlap between THE-IR and THE-WUR is indicated in Figure 3 . The raw number of universities included in both rankings is growing over the years (from 328 to 687). However, this value is misleading as the coverage of both rankings has increased. 68.36% of universities indexed in the THE-IR were not indexed in the THE-WUR in the 2020 ranking edition. This value drops to 61.5% in 2021.

Several countries participating in the THE-IR are not indexed in THE-WUR (it is noteworthy that institutions do not choose to participate in the THE-WUR; rather, they are selected based on their performances). These countries predominantly come from Latin America and the Caribbean (e.g. Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Curaçao) or West Asia (Palestine, Bahrain, Azerbaijan and Armenia). The notable presence of Uzbekistan (12 universities), Ecuador (10 universities indexed) or Azerbaijan (6 universities) should be emphasised ( Table 6 ).

Other countries exhibit extremely unbalanced behaviour regarding their presence in the THE-IR, particularly if we consider the 2021 edition. For example, China includes 91 universities in the THE-WUR (4 th by country rank), but only 13 are participating in the THE-IR (26 th by country rank). Germany includes 48 universities in the THE-WUR (9 th by country rank), while only six are participating in the THE-IR (44 th by country rank).

If we limit the analysis to the elite positions (top 200), we can observe a greater presence of countries in the THE-IR (37 countries) than in the THE-WUR (27 countries). However, despite the greater variety of countries in the THE-IR, most top universities are principally located in developed countries (the UK with 38, Australia with 24 and Canada with 20 universities). Otherwise, only 52 out of the top 200 universities ranked in the THE-WUR are participating in the THE-IR in 2021 (this value was 42 in 2020). These results provide evidence that the top universities indexed in the THE-WUR are not yet participating the THE-IR, but this behaviour may change in coming years if the THE-IR coverage continues to grow.

The distribution of universities throughout the three editions is presented in Figure 4 . On the one hand, East Asia (211 universities in 2019; 231 in 2020; and 250 in 2021), North America (199 in 2019; 202 in 2020; and 211 in 2021) and Northern Europe (147 universities in 2019; 154 in 2020; and 155 in 2021) are the most well-represented by the THE-WUR. On the other hand, East Asia (55 universities in 2019; 92 in 2020), Latin America and the Caribbean (55 in 2019 and 88 in 2020), West Asia (86 in 2020 and 140 in 2021) and Eastern Europe (51 in 2019 and 133 in 2021) are the most well-represented by the THE-IR. Thus, the number of developing countries (187%) has significantly increased in the THE-IR in comparison with the THE-WUR. This might suggest a different strategy for these countries participating in this SDG ranking.

The regions that presented the highest overlap between both rankings are East Asia (43 countries overlap in 2019 to 85 in 2021) and Eastern Europe (from 31 countries in 2019 to 70 in 2021), whereas African Regions (East, West and Southern Africa) scarcely overlap.

5. Discussion

Despite other initiatives launched to measure sustainable development, the THE-IR is the first worldwide ranking that values the contribution of HEIs towards SDGs. This study attempts to explain the methodology, coverage and geopolitical issues (by area and by country) related to this emergent ranking.

First, the content analysis undertaken revealed inconsistencies in the appropriateness and weights assigned to the research metrics employed ( Table 3 ), which might jeopardise the alignment of these metrics to the contributions to the SDGs. These results reinforce the general concerns that have already been indicated in the literature related to the use of performance metrics to measure sustainability ( Torabian, 2019 ; Calderon, 2021 ; De la Poza, 2021 ; Rafols et al. , 2021 ). Beyond research metrics, the irregularities uncovered support the work by Gadd (2020 , 2021 ) with new insights, proving that a lack of a solid ranking structure (methodological design) has the potential to cause adverse consequences (unrealistic results, incorrect decision-making and opportunistic behaviours). Otherwise, the continuous and evidential metrics have not been analysed. As the review of this institutional evidence is not public, the final evaluation of each SDG cannot be reproduced. Consequently, the final scores and ranking positions used in the Results section should be interpreted under this circumstance. Future studies should address this metric to obtain a complete picture of the THE-IR method. For example, conducting systematic surveys among university staff could provide insights into the accuracy and stability of THE-IR.

On the other hand, the results related to the THE-IR/THE-WUR coverage and overlap should be also discussed because the rules regarding participation in these rankings are different. While participation in the THE-WUR is based on performance, participation in the THE-IR operates on a voluntary basis. This fact can explain the growing number of universities from developing countries (most new HEIs) participating in the THE-IR as a reputational phenomenon that results from being excluded from the THE-WUR. The HEIs of developing countries could be becoming aware of sustainability’s relevance to promoting their universities and increasing their academic brands. Thus, concurring with Hazelkorn and Mihut (2021) , this ranking represents an opportunity for institutions to accrue intangible assets in the form of reputation and competitiveness within the ranking’s sphere of influence through achieving the SDGs and improving their positions on the ranking. In turn, as Hazelkorn (2015) foresaw, the university systems of these countries have noted how their flagship universities are positioned more highly in this ranking system than in the THE-WUR and how newcomers have emerged onto the scene of global rankings, reshaping the landscape of these institutions.

The low participation observed of the elite universities might be related to a cost-benefit analysis at the institutional-level. The cost of compiling evidence and the work it encompasses does not present a significant advantage in improving their academic image, which their presence in the THE-WUR ranking already ensures ( De la Poza et al. , 2021 ). Likewise, given that the engagement of universities with sustainability goals is evaluated, obtaining lower positions in the THE-IR could affect their reputation. Therefore, non-participation is a plausible option for most top research universities.

Participation in the ranking being voluntary and the general lack of incentives and funding to foster the involvement of countries might explain the low participation of other regions (e.g. Eastern Africa). Institutions with fewer resources cannot afford participation as it requires extra effort, which constitutes a paradox given this ranking aims to promote sustainability goals. However, the rising participation of other countries from developing regions (e.g. Latin America, the Caribbean and West Asia), which are exclusively participating in THE-IR, suggest a strategic interest (and investment) in promoting “sustainability” branding and increasing academic reputation.

More precisely, the surprising percentage of universities (16.1% in the 2021 edition) providing only the minimum required data to be ranked (four SDGs; Figure 2 ) reinforces the hypothesis that universities in certain regions are making strategic efforts to participate in this ranking due to the possibilities that the designed methodology allows. This is one of the most important unintended consequences. In addition, providing minimum data – also called “cherry-picking” ( Forestier and Kim, 2020 ) and “SDG washing” ( Buhmann, 2018 ) – should not be an acceptable approach due to the integrative and indivisible nature of the agenda ( United Nations, 2015 ). As Calderon (2021) suggests, increasing the number of mandatory SDGs and basing the overall score on them could provide more stability to the forthcoming editions of this ranking.

Finally, this study has used the available online ranking information as a primary source, which relies on the goodwill and evidence of universities (the information on the SDGs is submitted by each university to the THE-IR). The authors are unaware of the quality procedures the ranking publisher has adopted for considering, evaluating and displaying the data gathered. Any remaining errors are our responsibility.

6. Conclusions

THE-IR is the first global university ranking intended to measure HEIs against all the sustainability goals. However, the coverage, methodology and results provided by this ranking raise concerns about their (dis)alignment with the United Nations Agenda objectives. The key conclusions obtained are displayed below in a dual manner:

6.1 Ranking method

The macro-structure level of the THE-IR breaches acceptable standards for designing university rankings (two universities can be ranked in the same list through different indicators, and one university can be measured with different data through different editions), hindering the results’ comparability and limiting their understandability. At the micro-structure level, the use of research metrics compromise several of the Leiden Principles for research evaluation, while the use of scores with extremely wide ranges prevents an accurate interpretation of the final ranked positions. For these reasons, it is concluded that the results derived from this ranking may not be as accurate as assumed.

6.2 Ranking coverage and overlap

The results reveal an increasing number of countries participating in the THE-IR, with a greater representation of worldwide regions in elite positions (top 200) than that obtained in the THE-WUR. The growing number of universities from developing countries and the absence of world-class universities reflect a lack of interest in this ranking from elite universities and an opportunity for less-esteemed institutions. For this reason, it could be concluded that this emergent ranking is being primarily used by institutions that do not achieve leading positions in the THE-WUR. Such institutions can build strategies to achieve higher positions that are benefited by the serious limitations found in the ranking methodology.

Avoid global scores and stick to the specific un-ranged scores of each SDG, where each university is compared through the same battery of indicators.

Reward the number of SDGs on which each university submits data, and the achievement of minimum scores (thresholds) to minimise strategic actions.

Reduce the weight of research metrics, and use these indicators more equitably across all SDGs, avoiding measuring the same indicator in different SDGs.

Offer disaggregated results for each SDG. On the one hand, research (which denotes interest and impact on issues related to an SDG, but does not necessarily imply being sustainable), teaching, transfer and institutional management.

Value the regional or national orientations of universities as well as other qualitative dimensions (e.g., HEIs’ societal contribution).

The findings have clear implications for different actors in the university rankings arena. Firstly, university managers can be aware of the THE-IR’s validity when demanding informed decisions, and better preparing their institutions for participating in sustainability-related rankings. Secondly, university ranking researchers and practitioners can access a detailed analysis of the THE-IR to determine its properties as a ranking and use raw data from THE-IR in other research studies or reports. Thirdly, these results can help the ranking publisher to improve or resolve some of the inconsistencies found in this study. Fourthly, the development of public policies related to the evaluation of the contribution of universities to the SDG should avoid the inclusion of the overall results provided by THE-IR as much as possible, due to the inconsistencies identified in this work. If used, we strongly recommend highlighting each SDG separately, indicating the number of universities analysed in that SDG, and driving readers to the full current methodology. Otherwise, the information provided in public policies might be misinterpreted, leading to inappropriate decisions, which could, in turn, lead to economic and reputational consequences to the higher education institutions. Given the global audience of the THE-IR, the results obtained contribute to minimising the distorted view about the sustainability in the higher education institutions that the THE-IR projects to the Society, and alerts governments, higher education bodies and universities to take precautions when making (economic) decisions based on this ranking.

Last, further research should be undertaken on specific case studies that can help to gain insight into the practical implementation of the ranking. The motivation by different types of organisations (that include comprehensive, technical, public, private or non-profit universities, or institutions placed in large cities) to participate in this ranking should also be explored, particularly considering the distinction between developed and developing countries. It might also be interesting to conduct qualitative research (e.g. a DELPHI analysis) through university leaders to determine the perceived advantages and disadvantages of participating in the THE-IR and whether the doing meaningfully contributes to assessing the impact of universities in achieving SDGs.

Map of keyword co-occurrences of publications on sustainability and higher education

Source: Scopus; powered with VOSviewer ( https://www.vosviewer.com ).

Type of university participation in the Impact Rankings

Overlap of universities between the three editions

Distribution of universities in the THE-WUR (right) and the THE-IR (left) over the years

Overview of metrics analysed in the impact rankings

Research indicators used in the-IR (2021 edition)

Number of universities providing data for each SDG in the the-IR

Unique countries participating in the the-IR but not indexed in the the-WUR

a unique value indicates the number of universities in the three editions.

WA: West Asia; WE: West Europe; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa; SEA: South-east Asia, LAC: Latin America and the Caribbean; SE: East Europe; NE: North Europe; NA: North Africa; CA: Central Asia

The following query was performed in Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (universit* OR “higher education”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainab*). This query is intended to gather publications regarding both sustainability and higher education. From the corpus of publications gathered, all those containing at least the following keywords were filtered out: “Sustainable Development”, “Sustainability”, “Education”, “Higher Education”, “University”, “University Sector”, “Universities”, “Higher Education Institutions”, “Education for Sustainable Development”, “Sustainability Education”, “Sustainable Development Goals”, “University Campus”. The field was limited to the social sciences. A total of 19,809 keywords were obtained.

“Sustainable Development Goals”, “Sustainable Development Goal”, “SDG”, “SDGs”, “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”.

available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#geo-regions

available at: www.arcgis.com

available at: https://omics.pnl.gov/software/venn-diagram-plotter

available at: http://200.6.99.248/∼bru487cl/files/Berlin_Principles_Release.pdf

available at: http://ireg-observatory.org/en_old/berlin-principles

Japan is the country that includes the most universities in all three published ranking editions.

Armitage , C.S. , Lorenz , M. and Mikki , S. ( 2020 ), “ Mapping scholarly publications related to the sustainable development goals: do independent bibliometric approaches get the same results? ”, Quantitative Science Studies , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 1092 - 1108 , doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00071 .

Barron , G.R. ( 2017 ), “ The Berlin principles on ranking higher education institutions: limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict ”, Higher Education , Vol. 73 No. 2 , pp. 317 - 333 , doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0022-z .

Buhmann , K. ( 2018 ), “ Future perspectives: doing good but avoiding SDG-washing. Creating relevant societal value without causing harm ”, in Mulder , H. , Scheltema , M. , van't Foort , S. and Kwant , C. (Eds), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: A Glass Half Full , OECD , pp. 127 - 134 .

Calderon , A. ( 2021 ), “ Why SDG-focused impact rankings need to be contextualized ”, University World News , available at: www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2021042815055074 (accessed 24 December 2021 ).

Caputo , F. , Ligorio , L. and Pizzi , S. ( 2021 ), “ The contribution of higher education institutions to the SDGs – an evaluation of sustainability reporting practices ”, Administrative Sciences , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 1 - 13 , doi: 10.3390/ADMSCI11030097 .

Cardozo , M.L. , Japura , G.A. , Vargas-Murillo , A.R. , Sancho , G.F.I. and López , H.R.P. ( 2021 ), “ Characterization of Ibero-American universities by SDG in times higher education impact rankings 2020 ”, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education , Vol. 12 No. 5 , pp. 689 - 700 , doi: 10.17762/turcomat.v12i5.1470 .

Chankseliani , M. and McCowan , T. ( 2021 ), “ Higher education and the sustainable development goals ”, Higher Education , Vol. 81 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 8 , doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00652-w .

Collins , T.J. ( 2017 ), “ Review of the twenty-three year evolution of the first university course in green chemistry: teaching future leaders how to create sustainable societies ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 140 , pp. 93 - 110 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.136 .

Cortese , A.D. ( 2003 ), “ Planning for higher education the critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future need for a new human perspective envisioning a sustainable future ”, Planning for Higher Education , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 15 - 22 , available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.607.6556&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 24 December 2021 ).

De La Poza , E. , Merello , P. , Barberá , A. and Celani , A. ( 2021 ), “ Universities’ reporting on SDGs: using the impact rankings to model and measure their contribution to sustainability ”, Sustainability , Vol. 13 No. 4 , pp. 1 - 30 , doi: 10.3390/su13042038 .

Diaz-Sarachaga , J.M. , Jato-Espino , D. and Castro-Fresno , D. ( 2018 ), “ Is the sustainable development goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 agenda? ”, Sustainable Development , Vol. 26 No. 6 , pp. 663 - 671 , doi: 10.1002/sd.1735 .

Fisher , A. and Fukuda-Parr , S. ( 2019 ), “ Introduction – data, knowledge, politics and localizing the SDGs ”, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities , Vol. 20 No. 4 , pp. 375 - 385 , doi: 10.1080/19452829.2019.1669144 .

Forestier , O. and Kim , R.E. ( 2020 ), “ Cherry-picking the sustainable development goals: goal prioritization by national governments and implications for global governance ”, Sustainable Development , Vol. 28 No. 5 , pp. 1269 - 1278 , doi: 10.1002/sd.2082 .

Gadd , E. ( 2020 ), “ University rankings need a rethink ”, Nature , Vol. 587 No. 7835 , p. 523 , doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-03312-2 .

Gadd , E. ( 2021 ), “ Love DORA, hate rankings ”, Impact of Social Sciences [blog] , available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/111336 (accessed 24 December 2021 ).

Galleli , B. , Teles , N.E.B. , dos Santos , J.A.R. , Freitas-Martins , M.S. and Junior , F.H. ( 2021 ), “ Sustainability university rankings: a comparative analysis of UI green metric and the times higher education world university rankings ”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , Vol. 23 No. 2 , doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-12-2020-0475 .

Harwood , T.G. and Garry , T. ( 2003 ), “ An overview of content analysis ”, The Marketing Review , Vol. 3 No. 4 , pp. 479 - 498 .

Hazelkorn , E. ( 2015 ), Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence , Palgrave McMillan , London .

Hazelkorn , E. and Mihut , G. ( 2021 ), “ Introduction: putting rankings in context looking back, looking forward ”, in Hazelkorn , E. and Mihut , G. (Eds), Research Handbook on University Rankings: theory, Methodology, Influence and Impact , Edward Elgar Publishing , Gloss , pp. 1 - 17 , doi: 10.4337/9781788974981.00008 .

Heleta , S. and Bagus , T. ( 2021 ), “ Sustainable development goals and higher education: leaving many behind ”, Higher Education , Vol. 81 No. 1 , pp. 163 - 177 , doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00573-8 .

Hesselbarth , C. and Schaltegger , S. ( 2014 ), “ Educating change agents for sustainability – learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 62 , pp. 24 - 36 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.042 .

Hicks , D. , Wouters , P. , Waltman , L. , De Rijcke , S. and Rafols , I. ( 2015 ), “ Bibliometrics: the leiden manifesto for research metrics ”, Nature , Vol. 520 No. 7548 , pp. 429 - 431 , doi: 10.1038/520429a .

Iskandaryan , R. ( 2020 ), “ Rethinking higher education through sustainable development goals (SDGs): a Russian perspective ”, in Kantola , J. , Nazir , S. , Salminen , V. (Eds), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing , Springer , pp. 328 - 334 , doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-50791-6_42 .

Lafortune , G. , Fuller , G. , Moreno , J. , Schmidt-Traub , G. and Kroll , C. ( 2018 ), Global Responsibilities. Implementing the Goals , Bertelsmann , p. 476 , available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/sustainabledevelopment.report/2018/2018_sdg_index_and_dashboards_report.pdf (accessed 24 December 2021 ).

Lauder , A. , Sari , R.F. , Suwartha , N. and Tjahjono , G. ( 2015 ), “ Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 108 , pp. 852 - 863 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.080 .

Ligozat , A.L. , Névéol , A. , Daly , B. and Frenoux , E. ( 2020 ), “ Ten simple rules to make your research more sustainable ”, PLoS Computational Biology , Vol. 16 No. 9 , p. e1008148 , doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008148 .

Lozano , R. ( 2006 ), “ Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 14 Nos 9/11 , pp. 787 - 796 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.010 .

Lozano , R. , Ceulemans , K. , Alonso-Almeida , M. , Huisingh , D. , Lozano , F.J. , Waas , T. , Lambrechts , W. , Lukman , R. and Hugé , J. ( 2015 ), “ A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 108 , pp. 1 - 18 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048 .

Marginson , S. and van der Wende , M. ( 2007 ), “ To rank or to be ranked: the impact of global rankings in higher education ”, Journal of Studies in International Education , Vol. 11 Nos 3/4 , pp. 306 - 329 , doi: 10.1177/1028315307303544 .

Orduna-Malea , E. and Perez-Esparrells , C. ( 2021 ), “ Multidimensional taxonomy of university rankings ”, in Hazelkorn , E. and Mihut , G. (Eds), Research Handbook on University Rankings: theory, Methodology, Influence and Impact , Edward Elgar Publishing , Gloss , pp. 106 - 126 , doi: 10.4337/9781788974981.00017 .

Rafols , F. ( 2020 ), “ Consensus and dissensus in ‘mappings’ of science for sustainable development goals (SDGs) ”, Leiden Madtrics Blog Post on 10th August , Vol. 121 No. 2 , pp. 897 - 915 , available at: https://leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/consensus-and-dissensus-in-mappings-of-science-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs

Rafols , I. , Noyons , E. , Confraria , H. and Ciarli , T. ( 2021 ), “ Visualising plural mappings of science for sustainable development goals (SDGs) ”, in Glänzel , W. , Heeffer , S. , Chi , P-S. and Rousseau , R. (Eds), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI2021) , ISSI , pp. 949 - 954 , available at: https://kuleuven.box.com/s/kdhn54ndlmwtil3s4aaxmotl9fv9s329 (accessed 24 December 2021 ).

Safón , V. ( 2019 ), “ Inter-ranking reputational effects: an analysis of the academic ranking of world universities (ARWU) and the times higher education world university rankings (the) reputational relationship ”, Scientometrics , Vol. 121 No. 2 , pp. 897 - 915 , doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03214-9 .

Siegel , K.M. and Bastos Lima , M.G. ( 2020 ), “ When international sustainability frameworks encounter domestic politics: the sustainable development goals and agri-food governance in South America ”, World Development , Vol. 135 , doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105053 .

Torabian , J. ( 2019 ), “ Revisiting global university rankings and their indicators in the age of sustainable development ”, Sustainability: The Journal of Record , Vol. 12 No. 3 , pp. 167 - 172 , doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.0037 .

Unterhalter , E. ( 2019 ), “ The many meanings of quality education: politics of targets and indicators in SDG4 ”, Global Policy , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 39 - 51 , doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12591 .

United Nations ( 2015 ), “ Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 ”, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York .

Velazquez , L. , Munguia , N. , Platt , A. and Taddei , J. ( 2006 ), “ Sustainable university: what can be the matter? ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 14 Nos 9/11 , pp. 810 - 819 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.008 .

Wright , T. ( 2004 ), “ The evolution of sustainability declarations in higher education ”, in Corcoran P.B. and Wals A.E.J. (Eds), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability , Springer , Dordrecht, Netherlands , pp. 7 - 19 , doi: 10.1007/0-306-48515-X_2 .

Acknowledgements

This project has been supported by the project UNIVERSEO (Ref. GV/2021/141), funded by the regional government of Generalitat Valenciana (Spain).

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Nuria Bautista-Puig attained her BsC in Geography (University of Lleida, Spain), MSc in GIS and remote sensing (University of Zaragoza, Spain) and Ph.D. in Library and Information Science (2020, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, AASHE Campus Sustainability Research Award, Spanish thesis award). Currently, she is an affiliated researcher at the University of Gävle (Sweden) and R&D Technical Support at UC3M, sponsored by the YUFERING EC-Funded project. Her areas of expertise include the fields of information science, organisational sustainability and bibliometrics/scientometrics. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2404-0683

Dr Orduña-Malea is Technical Telecommunication Engineer, MA in Library Science, Master in Management of Multichannel Contents, and holds a PhD with a dissertation thesis about webmetrics and university rankings. Currently, he works as a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Audiovisual Communication, Documentation and History of Art, at the Polytechnic University of Valencia. His lines of research are mainly related to the application of web-based techniques to Science Studies. Enrique also collaborates in funded research projects and international advisory activities about the web visibility of universities, researchers and other online research objects. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1989-8477

Carmen Perez-Esparrells is B.A. in Economics and Business Administration, M.A. in Economics of Education and Labour Economics and holds a Ph.D. in Economics with a dissertation thesis in university funding. Currently, she is an Associate Professor at the Department of Economics and Public Finance of Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM). She held the positions of Vice-Rector for Innovation at UAM and of Associate Researcher at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Spanish Ministry of Finance. She has been a member of the Association of Economics of Education (AEDE) since its inception and has held the position of President from 2012 to 2014. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4466-9825

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

tree-logo-small-v2.png

• Research trends reports
• Tips & Tricks

You are here

Search this blog, get our newsletter.

Follow Scopus

• Content (59)
• Metrics (44)
• Release (36)
• Tips and Tricks (26)
• scopus (19)

Recent Posts

• Enhancements to Citation Overview on Scopus
• ACRL Webinar - Unlocking Insights with Generative AI: How to Enhance Research Efficiency in the Library
• Changes to Scopus Open Access (OA) document tagging
• A.T. Still University Scopus and Digital Commons case study now available!
• Meet the CSAB: Professor & Subject Chair Jaya Raju

THE Impact Rankings 2023: Celebrating Universities' Commitment to Sustainability and UN SDGs

On June 1, 2023, the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings were released , recognizing universities' significant contributions to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This comprehensive evaluation measures institutions' dedication to sustainability across four key areas: research, stewardship, outreach, and teaching. The 2023 rankings saw an unprecedented participation of 1,705 universities from 115 countries and regions, reflecting the global collective push for a more sustainable future.

Overview of the THE Impact Rankings methodology

The Impact Rankings are the first global attempt to measure university progress specifically around SDGs. The aspiration is for the Impact Rankings to serve as a catalyst for action, a means of holding universities accountable, and an opportunity for universities to highlight the exceptional work that they are already doing.

Inclusion in the overall ranking is granted to universities that provide data on SDG 17 – partnerships for the goals – and at least three other SDGs. Each university's total score is calculated by combining its score in SDG 17 with its top three scores from the remaining SDGs. The overall ranking score represents an average of the institution's total scores from the past two years.

Learn more about the THE Impact Rankings methodology here .

The bibliometrics used in the THE Impact Rankings

The Impact Rankings use bibliometrics, based on Publication and Citation data from Scopus, to contribute to 27% of the individual SDG scores and around 7% of the overall ranking score. Elsevier collaborated with the research community to create the latest SDG mapping, resulting in the capture of twice as many publications as before.  Leveraging machine learning models and updated search queries, the mapping ensures accuracy and inclusivity in the evaluation process. This transparency is further promoted by making the 2023 search query methodology openly accessible in Digital Commons Data .

Celebrating the Top Performers

Among the 1,705 evaluated universities, 18 institutions from 10 countries and regions achieved the esteemed number one position across individual SDGs and the overall category. Australian and Canadian universities stood out with exceptional performances, dominating the top 10 of the overall category.

Western Sydney University from Australia claimed the coveted top spot, showcasing a strong commitment to sustainability in research, stewardship, outreach, and teaching.

Browse the full Impact Rankings 2023 results here.

ASU retains No. 1 in US and top 10 spot globally in UN Sustainable Development Goals ranking

Times higher education's impact rankings recognize university's work across variety of initiatives.

Editor’s note:  This story is featured in the  2023 year in review .

As a demonstration of Arizona State University’s continued investment in high-impact research that tackles our global needs and challenges, the internationally respected Times Higher Education Impact Rankings recognized the university as the No. 1 institution in the United States and sixth in the world for addressing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals  (SDGs).

The annual publication of university rankings looks at impacts made addressing 17 specific goals aimed at achieving a better world by 2030. Adopted by all 193 United Nations member states in 2015, these goals provide a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.

“In a world of exponential change, unparalleled technological advancement and persistent inequality, institutions dedicated to knowledge creation have a critical responsibility to help forge a better future,” ASU President Michael M. Crow said. “ASU’s design and priorities demonstrate our determination to master global challenges, and the Impact Rankings serve as an important gauge of our progress — and a fuel for our aspirations.”

Video by Knowledge Enterprise Marketing and Communications

For 2023, ASU’s score of 96.5 out of 100 points put it at No. 1 in the U.S., coming ahead of Michigan State University, Penn State and MIT. It’s the fourth year in a row that ASU has held the top national spot. ASU also placed No. 6 in the world out of 1,600 institutions, coming in ahead of Monash University in Australia, the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and the University of Toronto.

The ranking was driven by the university’s efforts on issues surrounding poverty and hunger, clean water and air, gender equality and climate change. ASU also made huge strides in water issues ranging from water security to marine biodiversity. The university ranked highest worldwide in the following areas: Life Below Water (No. 4 globally), Life on Land (No. 5 globally), Climate Action (No. 6 globally) and Clean Water and Sanitation (No. 7 globally).

ASU is No. 1 in the U.S for eight of the 17 SDGs:

• SDG 1: No Poverty, ahead of the University of South Florida, Michigan State and American University.
• SDG 4: Quality Education, ahead of the University of Georgia, American University and Michigan State University.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, ahead of Iowa State University, North Carolina State and Virginia Tech.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, ahead of American University and Virginia Tech.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, ahead of MIT, Virginia Tech and North Carolina State.
• SDG 13: Climate Action, ahead of the University at Buffalo, New York University and Virginia Tech.
• SDG 15: Life on Land, ahead of Michigan State University, Penn State and Virginia Tech.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, ahead of American University, Michigan State University and Indiana University.

“This recognition reflects ASU’s commitment to impact by engaging in discovery, learning and problem-solving to advance evidence-based decision-making,” said Peter Schlosser , vice president and vice provost of Global Futures at ASU . “To illustrate this, consider the breadth of ASU’s commitment to addressing issues around oceans and their future, the availability and quality of water on land, and justice and peace among others as we confront an ever more divided world.”

While the ranking continues to shine a bright spotlight on the university, it is partnerships across the university and beyond that influences ASU’s position at the top national spot four years in a row.

“Simply put, ASU cannot do this work alone,” said Amanda Ellis , former UN Ambassador and co-chair of ASU’s SDG & Beyond Task Force. “As the lead for Global Partnerships and Networks in the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory , we know that climate change and its impacts create 'problems without passports' that fundamentally require multi-institutional partnerships to reach the speed and scale necessary for solutions. I am proud to see ASU’s transformative work once again reflected in the Times Higher Education’s Impact Ranking.”

Here's a look at some of those partnerships, programs and collaborations:

Global Futures Conference : The Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory, in partnership with the Earth League, hosted the inaugural Global Futures Conference on Sept. 20–22, 2022, in New York City. Each day included presentations, working sessions and forums for participants to engage in rigorous and lively discussions on "must-have" outcomes and "must-do" actions so life may thrive on a healthy planet. A comprehensive report outlining the must-haves and must-do's is now available for public review.

Arizona Water Innovation Initiative : The state of Arizona tapped ASU to lead the multiyear Arizona Water Innovation Initiative to provide solutions to ensure that the state will continue to thrive with a secure and resilient future water supply. The university is working with industrial, municipal, agricultural, tribal and international partners to accelerate and deploy new approaches and technology for water conservation, augmentation, desalination, efficiency, infrastructure and reuse.

ASU Starbucks Center for the Future of People and the Planet : The center led the Borrow A Cup program, part of the Starbucks 100% reusables test, launched at ASU stores in summer 2023. The program replaces the single-use cups sold in store with reusable cups that customers will be encouraged to return. Rooted in shared aspirational commitments to the betterment of people, the planet and our global communities, the center continues to advance the Starbucks transformative agenda and 2030 targets by leveraging ASU’s applied research, networks and expert faculty.

Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences (BIOS): Located in St. George’s on the islands of Bermuda, BIOS is the premier deep-ocean observatory in the Western Hemisphere. BIOS anchors a unique part of the global ocean-observing system designed to monitor the real-time physical state of the Atlantic Ocean. This institute has several long-running, ship-based monitoring programs and employs a fleet of gliders, or underwater “drones,” that are capable of continuously monitoring changes in the surrounding ocean. BIOS-based researchers and students are advancing the understanding of the ocean’s contributions to Earth’s overall health and are exploring what is needed to secure these services into the future.

ASU California Center : This university location pulls together impact research that tie into multiple SDGs. It also convenes solution-finders at a variety of events. In October 2022, ASU marked its expansion in California with a weeklong series of events at the ASU California Center, located at the historic Herald Examiner Building in downtown Los Angeles. It was an opportune time for the university to discuss its sustainability goals. In an Oct. 7 panel discussion titled “Global and Local Sustainability: SDGs, ESG and Climate Action and Beyond,” the Thunderbird School of Global Management led a dialogue on how cities can align to develop policies that ensure sustainable and equitable futures for their communities. 

Planet : Since 2016, ASU has collaborated with Planet, a team of rocket scientists, software engineers, creatives, business strategists and researchers. Together they have worked on significant sustainability programs including the Planet Incubator Program within ASU’s Center for Global Discovery and Conservation Science , the development of the Allen Coral Atlas , as well as being two of the founding partners in the creation of the Carbon Mapper mission. In early 2019, ASU became Planet’s first campuswide university partner , and since then, over 30 peer-reviewed journal articles have been published by ASU using Planet’s data products.

Jane Goodall Institute : In 2021, the Jane Goodall Institute forged a new partnership with the Institute of Human Origins at ASU . The partnership included the physical archive of over 60 years of observations of wild chimpanzees in Gombe National Park, initiated by Jane Goodall , founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and U.N. messenger of peace. The archive — which is providing new comparative data with individual primates still alive today — is composed of hundreds of thousands of handwritten notes by hundreds of researchers. Its new home is ASU’s state-of-the-art research building, the Walton Center for Planetary Health, which Goodall visited in 2023.

Mayo Clinic : The 150,000-square-foot Health Futures Center , which opened in May 2021 next to Mayo Clinic's Phoenix campus, houses researchers from several ASU schools and colleges, including researchers and faculty members of the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory. Researchers there collaborate on the some of the latest health and well-being work. 

More Environment and sustainability

Study: Conservation actions highly effective at halting, reversing biodiversity loss

A new study, led and contributed to by Arizona State University faculty, provides the strongest evidence to date that not only is nature conservation successful, but that scaling up conservation…

Barrett Honors College to host nature walks for science, relaxation

Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University is gearing up to participate in the City Nature Challenge (CNC) for the fourth consecutive year. This annual event, taking place April 26–29,…

Arizona adapting to heat crisis with initiatives featured in ASU report

Arizona State University's Knowledge Exchange for Resilience, also known as KER, released its Recommendations Report on Extreme Heat Preparedness earlier this April during a summit in the nation's…

Queen’s places 3rd worldwide in 2023 Times Higher Education Impact Rankings

Global Impact

University secures its best performance to date with third consecutive top-10 finish.

By Dave Rideout

June 1, 2023

Link copied to clipboard

For the third straight year, Queen’s has ranked among the top 10 in the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings   – earning third place worldwide and first place in North America out of over 1,700 universities. Queen’s is the only Canadian university to achieve three top-10 placements since the rankings began in 2019.

The THE Impact Rankings are a global measurement for assessing universities’ performance in advancing the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were established by UN member nations in 2015 to guide global action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure shared peace and prosperity for all people by 2030.  

"It is an honour to be recognized for our institution’s ongoing contributions to advancing the SDGs. These goals are reflective of the university’s mission and our desire to be recognized as a global institution," says Patrick Deane, Principal and Vice-Chancellor. "The Impact Rankings have played an instrumental role in bringing together our community by creating a focus on the numerous ways Queen’s is engaged in solving the world’s most pressing challenges. Our performance in the rankings tells us that we are on the right track, and our efforts are having an impact."

The 2023 rankings reviewed institutions from 117 countries, including 26 Canadian universities, and saw an overall increase of 11 per cent in worldwide participation over last year.

"It’s really impressive what Queen’s University is doing to meet the goals and is a testament to how seriously it takes those critically important goals and how the whole sector is united in pursuit of a sustainable future for us all," says Phil Baty, Chief Global Affairs Officer with Times Higher Education. "The rankings are vital for millions of prospective students who are increasingly demanding to see evidence that the universities they consider for their education are committed to sustainability and to helping them to become sustainably minded citizens."

Our performance

The Impact Rankings evaluate universities’ activities across four important areas – research, teaching, outreach, and stewardship – using hundreds of quantitative and qualitative data points.

Once again Queen’s submitted evidence for all 17 SDGs , and scored outstanding marks, in particular for advancing SDGs 2, 11, and 16. The university placed first in the world for its contributions to SDG 2: Zero Hunger; second in the world for SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions; and seventh for SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

"Our performance in this year’s rankings confirms that Queen’s is realizing its aspirations to be a university that effects real, positive change at the local, national, and global level," says Principal Deane. "Our community is working together to improve our world and to help shape a better future for all of us and the planet."

Queen’s submitted more than 400 pieces of evidence this year, highlighting institutional operations, policies, research, and strategy, and involving collaborative work by dozens of units across the university. Some examples of the evidence provided and evaluated this year include:

• SDG 2 – Swipe it Forward Queen’s, an initiative to help address food insecurity on campus and provide short-term, immediate support to students in need. All students on meal plans have the option to donate up to five meals per semester to a student in need.
• SDG 2 – The new Queen’s PEACH Market, a ‘pay what you can’ model where untouched food is packaged and made available to members of the university community.
• SDG 16 – The John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy in the Department of Economics informs policymaking in Canada and abroad by focusing on policy-relevant research in economics and related fields.
• SDG 16 – Queen’s Model Parliament (QMP) is the oldest and largest model parliament in Canada. The student-led event sees about 300 students take over Canada’s House of Commons where they experience the legislative process by forming political parties, running for office, drafting bills, and debating them on the floor.
• SDG 11 – Queen’s is committed to recording and preserving aspects of cultural heritage such as local folklore, traditions, language, and knowledge. Our Office of Indigenous Initiatives – Art on Campus program has installed artwork across campus from many different Indigenous nations, as well as an outdoor plinth that identifies the Indigenous land the university sits on.
• SDG 11 – The Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts, or "The Isabel" as it is fondly known, hosts public performances, bringing local, national, and internationally renowned artists and performers of all genres to the local community, including musicians and performing artists.
• SDG 11 – The Sustainable Transportation Sub-Working Group provides recommendations for the implementation of alternative transportation such as public transit options, parking pass options, and active transportation with a focus on benefits for the environment, human health, and the economy.
• SDG 15 – The Queen's University Biological Station (QUBS) is one of the premier scientific field stations in Canada. For almost 70 years, researchers and students have gathered at QUBS to conduct leading-edge research and participate in courses spanning ecology, evolution, conservation, geography, and environmental science.
• SDG 15 – Sustainability and biodiversity initiatives are core to the mandate of Queen’s Bader College (UK). The campus acts as a living laboratory, where students collect samples and perform experiments on the rich variety of ecosystems and land forms that are present.

Learn more about Queen’s University’s performance in the 2023 Times Higher Education Impact Rankings and contributions to the SDGs .

Media Contacts

Editors' Picks

Sharing an astronomical moment together, new admissions process improves equitable access to the queen’s md program, queen’s university art centre set to become the largest university museum in canada, related stories.

Uncovering the history of Black self-publishing in Canada

Ontario government invests in Queen's research

New Chairs and over $40M in funding for Queen’s

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

World University Rankings 2024

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2024 include 1,906 universities across 108 countries and regions.

The table is based on our new WUR 3.0 methodology , which includes 18 carefully calibrated performance indicators that measure an institution’s performance across five areas: teaching, research environment, research quality, industry, and international outlook.

This year’s ranking analysed more than 134 million citations across 16.5 million research publications and included survey responses from 68,402 scholars globally. Overall, we collected 411,789 datapoints from more than 2,673 institutions that submitted data.

Trusted worldwide by students, teachers, governments and industry experts, the 2024 league table reveals how the global higher education landscape is shifting.

View the World University Rankings 2024 methodology

The University of Oxford tops the ranking for the eighth year in a row, but others in the top five have seen shifts in their ranks. Stanford University moves up to second place, pushing Harvard University down to fourth.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) climbs up two places to third this year. The University of Cambridge slips to fifth place, after being in joint third place last year.

The highest new entry is Italy’s Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, ranked in the 301-350 bracket. However, the majority of the institutions joining the ranking for the first time this year are in Asia.

The US is the most-represented country overall, with 169 institutions, and also the most-represented in the top 200 (56). With 91 institutions, India is now the fourth most-represented nation, overtaking China (86).

Four countries enter the ranking for the first time – all of them in Europe. The addition of Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia and Armenia is in contrast to last year’s trend when all the new entrants were from Africa.

Stanford University leads the teaching pillar, while the universities of Oxford and Cambridge come top for research environment. The research quality pillar, which is the newly renamed citations pillar, sees MIT in first place.

The University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates scores highest in international outlook, while 28 institutions receive a top score of 100 for the industry pillar.

In addition to the 1,904 ranked institutions, a further 769 universities are listed with “reporter” status, meaning that they provided data but did not meet our eligibility criteria to receive a rank, and agreed to be displayed as a reporter in the final table.

Read our analysis of the World University Rankings 2024 results

Download a copy of the World University Rankings 2024 digital report

To raise your university’s global profile with Times Higher Education , contact [email protected]

To unlock the data behind THE’s rankings and access a range of analytical and benchmarking tools, click here

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Read more about the World University Rankings 2024

Student insights.

• Best universities in the world
• Best universities in the UK
• Best universities in the United States
• Best universities in Canada
• Best universities in Australia
• Best universities in Germany
• Best universities in Europe

Academic Insights

• World University Rankings 2024: results announced
• World University Rankings 2024: the 20th edition
• World University Rankings 2024: China creeps closer to top 10
• World University Rankings 2024: warning on UK’s China reliance
• World University Rankings 2024: Australian elite falters
• World University Rankings 2024: a broader look at research quality
• World University Rankings 2024: Australia over-achieves in research
• World University Rankings 2024: Indonesia top for student-staff ratio
• World University Rankings 2024: trends in industry
• World University Rankings 2024: UK doubles down on global links
• The shape of rankings to come
• World University Rankings 2024: 20 years tracking global higher education
• Talking leadership: David Garza on enticing top scholars to Mexico
• HKUST head: universities must ignite the sparks of innovation
• Talking leadership: Erik Renström on industry partnerships
• NYU president: global engagement is a form of alchemy
• World University Rankings 2024: changes to our methodology
• Lagos v-c: Nigerian universities must hustle for funding
• Enticing students back to campus is not a simple endeavour
• Talking leadership: Daniel Diermeier on institutional neutrality
• Talking leadership: Cheryl de la Rey on tragedy and resilience
• Talking leadership: Gary May on attracting minority students
• World University Rankings 2024 digital edition

Methodology:

Featured jobs

Featured universities.

KNUST Tops Times Higher Education 2023 Impact Ranking for Quality Education (SDG 4)

The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) has been recognised as the best university in the world for the provision of quality education (SDG 4). The prestigious accolade was announced in the published 2023 Times Higher Education Impact Rankings on Thursday, June 1, 2023.

The Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings are the sole global performance tables that evaluate universities based on the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Employing meticulously calibrated indicators, THE provides comprehensive and impartial comparisons across four key areas: research, stewardship, outreach, and teaching.

The 2023 Impact Rankings, in its fifth edition, encompassed a total of 1,591 universities from 112 countries/regions. Demonstrating unparalleled excellence, the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) secured the top position globally with an outstanding score of 93.1, surpassing all other universities worldwide in terms of the University’s contributions in the provision of quality education (SDG 4). KNUST outperformed 1,303 out of the 1,304 universities within this category across the globe, cementing its status as the premier destination for quality education globally.

The SDG 4 - Quality Education category evaluates universities' contributions to early years and lifelong learning, research, and their dedication to inclusive education. This year, an impressive 1,304 universities from 109 countries/regions participated in this esteemed category. The 2023 feat is a massive improvement over the 2022 rankings which placed the University as the number one (1) in Africa and 14th globally in terms of (SDG4).

Expressing his reaction to the latest ranking, Dr. Daniel Norris Bekoe, the University Relations Officer, highlighted that the remarkable achievement reflects the substantial and strategic investments made by the University's Management over the years. Dr. Bekoe specifically praised past and current administrations for the legendary investments in infrastructure, ICT, and e-learning resources, which have significantly enhanced the inclusive educational experience at KNUST.

In addition, Dr. Bekoe highlighted the noteworthy endeavours undertaken by the University in assisting emerging researchers through financial support and facilitating the pursuit of impactful research initiatives and subsequently publishing their findings in high-impact journals was recognised as a pivotal factor with transformative implications for the University.

Furthermore, he highlighted initiatives such as scholarships for academically gifted but financially disadvantaged students, the Support One Needy Student with One Laptop (SONSOL) Project initiated by Professor (Mrs.) Rita Akosua Dickson, the Vice-Chancellor to bridge the digital divide, provision of counselling and other career development services, the provision of assistance to needy students covering accommodation, food, clothing, and special vehicles to enhance the mobility of persons with disabilities. These accomplishments reflect KNUST's commitment to inclusivity and ensuring that no student is left behind.

Dr. Bekoe also commended the University’s Administration for their proactive implementation of various policies, including those pertaining to Gender, Anti-Sexual Harassment, Equality and Diversity, Mentorship, Counselling, Quality Assurance, Teaching and Learning, Research, and Professional Evaluation of Teaching, Disability among others. These policies serve the important purpose of guaranteeing high-quality service provision and safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable members within the University Community.

He stressed the firm commitment of Management to consistently make strategic decisions and investments aimed at enhancing the quality of education. This steadfast dedication is driven by the overarching goal of nurturing students who possess not only a profound understanding of their subjects but also exemplary character traits. By steadfastly adhering to this principle, KNUST aspires to equip its students with the necessary skills and knowledge to excel not only within Ghana but also on a global scale.

Dr. Daniel Norris Bekoe conveyed the profound appreciation of the University's Management to the dedicated staff and students, invaluable partners, and esteemed stakeholders for their immense contributions leading to this outstanding milestone. This significant achievement stands as a testament to the collective efforts and unwavering commitment exhibited by the entire KNUST Community.

Dr. Bekoe further emphasised the need for all staff and students to sustain this diligent and persevering spirit. He underscored that the resplendent banner of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology must continue to wave high, symbolising the Institution's relentless pursuit of excellence.

Recent News

World IP Day with Professor Cynthia Amaning Danquah

World IP Day with Professor George Yaw Obeng

World IP Day with Professor Veronica M. Dzomeku 

KNUST Celebrates Ingenuity in Achieving SDGs on World IP Day 2024

World IP Day with Dr. Kofi Agyekum

World IP Day with Professor Jacob K. Agbenorhevi

World IP Day with Dr. Henry Agbe 

2024 CHS Excellence Awards Ceremony Held

University Council Appoints Dr. Charles Nsiah as Finance Officer

16 Healthcare Business Start-Ups Awarded $150,000 as Seed Funds

ABUAD Hosts Maiden Africa-Asia Intercontinental Universities Conference

Afe Babalola University Ado-Ekiti, ABUAD,is set to hold its maiden Africa-Asia Intercontinental Universities Conference.

The university rated by Times Higher Education Impact Rankings as Number 1 university in Nigeria for two consecutive years (2022 & 2023) and Number 221 in the world said the Conference will promote education, scientific cooperation partnership between Academia and Industry and advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Lady Christie Oluborode, the Registrar ABUAD, in a statement said the event will hold on Monday, April 29, and Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at the popular Alfa Belgore Hall of the institution.

Among the Speakers are ,the Executive Governor of Ekiti State, HE, Mr. Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji, the Director of the Centre for China-Africa Discourse Studies, Queen Modestus, the Consul-General of the People’s Republic of China, Yan Yuging, the Consul-General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in Shanghai, Ambassador Ogu Chimezie Okeoma,

Other expected guests are : the Honorable Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman, the Director, Institute of African Studies, Zhejiang North University, Prof. Liu Hongwu Wu and ABUAD Founder, Aare Afe Babalola.