Times Higher Education (THE) released its eighth edition of the now-rebranded Sustainability Impact Ratings, continuing to showcase how universities are working towards addressing the United Nations’ sustainable development agenda.
As a result of various changes made by THE, including a fee-for-service membership model, the number of participating institutions declined. This year, 1,603 institutions were ranked, 715 fewer than 2025. However, this is still significantly higher than the 462 institutions ranked for the inaugural edition of 2019.
Griffith climbs
Australian universities continue to perform remarkably well and dominate at the top. Among the world’s top 50, eight are from Australia, followed by South Korea (seven), Canada (five), and the United Kingdom (five).
Griffith has continued its meteoric rise to overall 2nd globally, compared to =4th last year or 72nd in 2023.
Western Sydney ranked first globally for four consecutive years and is now ranked 3rd, followed by Tasmania at =16th. Another five Australian institutions are included in the worlds’ top 50: Central Queensland at 29th, Newcastle at 30th, Flinders at 36th, along with UNSW and Wollongong at =41st.
To complete the number of Australian universities ranked in the top 100, Sunshine Coast is at =59th, and RMIT and UTS are both ranked at =63.
Overall, there were 23 Australian universities that submitted data to at least two or more SDGs. However, only 21 are included in the overall rank.
Eight Australian universities submitted data for all 17 SDGs: Wollongong, Newcastle, Southern Cross, Charles Sturt, Tasmania, Federation, UNSW and Western Sydney. Another six submitted data for 10 to 14 SDGs: Central Queensland, ACU, Queensland, Griffith, QUT, and Charles Darwin.
The preparation of evidence and submission process is resource-intensive, requiring effective coordination and the timely availability of evidence in the public domain.
How is the rank derived?
The overall rank is calculated by combining an institution’s score in SDG 17 with the top three out of the remaining SDGs for which data and evidence was submitted. In Griffith’s case, their best four scores were in:
- SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), achieving a score of 95.6, with perfect scores in the metrics about relationships to support the goals, publication of SDG reports, and education for the goals. Griffith ranked =14th globally
- SDG 14 (Life below water), achieving a score of 95.6, with perfect scores in the metrics about supporting aquatic ecosystems through education, supporting aquatic ecosystems through actions, water sensitive waste disposal, and maintaining a local ecosystem. Griffith ranked =1st globally
- SDG 15 (Life on land), achieving a score of 94.7, with perfect scores in the metrics about supporting land ecosystems through education and land sensitive waste disposal. Griffith ranked =9th globally
- SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), achieving a score 92.4, with perfect scores in water usage and care, water reuse, and water in the community.
Is it a ranking or a rating?
The short answer is that while institutions continue to be ranked, the evaluation system is now called Sustainability Impact Ratings – a change announced by THE last year.
The rankings method is likely to remain until 2030, pending the UN’s determination of the scope for the SDGs beyond 2030.
Feedback received by THE from institutions indicated mixed views on whether rankings should be removed in favour of providing ratings for each SDG. Ultimately, it was considered easier to keep the current mechanism, acknowledging that one way or another, punters would derive a ranking anyway.
Commitment and dedication
The University of Manchester remains the only institution that has ranked every year in the world’s top 10, deservingly ranking 1st overall.
Of the 30 Australian universities which have received an overall rank in the impact rankings since 2019, nine have done it every year: ACU, Central Queensland, Charles Darwin, QUT, RMIT, Tasmania, Wollongong, UNSW, and Western Sydney.
We have seen long time commitments to sustainability by institutions such as RMIT, Tasmania, and Western Sydney, who led the way towards global recognition as first seen in the early editions of the impact rankings.
Further, the structured formula of success as mastered by Manchester, Auckland, RMIT, and Western Sydney can be replicated elsewhere.
As noted previously, what is considered best practice in one year may be replaced in the following year. Striving to meet evolving best practice standards has helped strengthen performance among institutions that previously underperformed or were constrained, particularly where there were no dedicated resources to support the labour-intensive submission process. The submission process is like doing a mini-ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia) exercise on an annual basis.
Universities across global regions, particularly in the Asia-Pacific, are rapidly developing their own models of success. Therefore, the continued success of Australian universities is not guaranteed.
Best practice
Following the release of results, those involved in preparing submissions have annually undertaken a process to identify what performed best across specific SDGs. This has informed the development of improvement roadmaps and supported preparation for the subsequent year’s submission. At the same time, it reinforces the view that participation in this ranking is not for the faint-hearted. As such, there are likely to be years when institutions perform extremely well, as well as more challenging years.
This year, THE has made such tasks easier for subscribers to DataPoints, a guide identifying institutions which are exemplars of relevant evidence on items used as part of the assessment process.
Examples of best practice are:
- For SDG 10, on the item about disability support services, RMIT’s evidence was deemed an exemplar of relevant evidence, alongside evidence from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Ghana) and the Gulf Medical University (United Arab Emirates).
- For SDG 12, on the item about policy waste disposal – landfill policy, the University of Sheffield was deemed an exemplar of relevant evidence, alongside evidence from the University of Calgary and the University of Wollongong.
Preferred SDGs
Aside from the compulsory SDG 17 (Partnership for the goals), the top five most reported SDGs by Australian universities, in descending order, are SDG 3 (Good health and wellbeing), SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities), SDG 13 (Climate action), SDG 5 (Gender equality), and SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth).
The least reported SDGS among Australian universities, in ascending order, are SDG 1 (No poverty) and SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure).
In turn, once again the top four most reported SDGs globally are, in descending order, SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), SDG 5 (Gender equality)), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). Whilst the least reported SDGs globally are SDG 14 (Life below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
There are 93 instances across the 17 SDGs in which Australian universities rank in the top 50, with the greatest frequency in SDG 3 (Good health and Wellbeing), SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation) and SDG 13 (Climate action).
Griffith, Newcastle and Western Sydney have the highest number of their listings in the top 50.
Overall, 12 Australian universities have one or more listings among the world’s 10 across the SDGs, with Griffith ranked =1st in SDG 14 (Life below water), Tasmania ranked 1st in SDG 13 (Climate action) and RMIT ranked 1st in SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation).
Parting thought
This ranking is likely to remain volatile, given its methodological design and the challenges associated with consistently refining what is considered best practice. But it also highlights the complexity and multidimensional nature of the assessment.
At the same time, it is an evaluation system that compels institutions to reassess their approach to submissions year on year, even when there is limited change within short timeframes. Ultimately, it is regional and global competition, peer comparison, and the pursuit of recognition that drive institutions to act.