Although most Australian universities improved their year-on-year scores in the latest QS Sustainability Rankings, the majority of universities lost ground in the index.
QS released its fourth edition of its Sustainability Rankings overnight, featuring 38 Australian universities. 27 universities moved down in rank, eight moved up, one remained unchanged, and two new entrants were included: the newly established Adelaide and Bond universities.
The QS Sustainability Rankings is designed to showcase how universities are taking action to tackle the world’s greatest Environmental, Social and Governance challenges and demonstrate how universities are using their expertise and social position to drive sustainable development forward.
This year's performance is like last year's results when a similar downturn was experienced. In part, this is influenced by new entrants overseas (although not necessarily ranking higher than Australian universities), but it also reflects the improved quality of information provided by institutions worldwide.
Top Australian performers
This year, six Australian universities are ranked in the top 50, compared to eight last year.
There is also a change at the top. This year, UNSW is Australia's top performer, ranked 7 globally, up from 12 last year. Sydney follows at 15, down from 11 last year. Melbourne dropped 7 places to =16 with ANU.
ANU moved up 32 places from 48 last year, largely influenced by strong performance in environmental education, environmental sustainability, and governance. These measures consider results from QS reputation surveys, institutional operations, and membership of climate-focused groups.
Monash is ranked 41, up 8 places from 49 last year, and Queensland is down 9 places to 50 from 41 last year.
Top 100
This year, five universities are ranked in the top 100 (51-100 range), compared to six last year.
UTS is ranked 69, down from 47 last year, followed by Griffith ranked 76, down from 49 last year. The newly established Adelaide debuts at 89 and is followed by RMIT at =95 and Macquarie at 98.
Top 200
There are 10 universities ranked in the world’s top 200, up from 9 last year. These are UWA, Deakin, QUT, Newcastle, Wollongong, Tasmania, Western Sydney, James Cook, Curtin, and La Trobe.
It’s worth noting that Deakin, QUT, and Wollongong moved down from the top 100 last year. Flinders, which ranked 153 last year, is now outside the top 200.
Performance by category
This ranking includes three categories (or pillars) divided into nine lenses for a total of 52 indicators. QS provides details of institutional performance at the category and lens levels.
In the social impact category, 16 Australian universities are ranked among the world’s top 100, two fewer from last year. UNSW is ranked 1 globally, whilst Sydney and ANU are ranked =6 globally. All Go8 universities plus Macquarie and UTS are ranked in the top 50. Curtin, Deakin, La Trobe, RMIT, Newcastle, and Wollongong complete the top 100. This category contains 25 indicators spread across five lenses and accounts for 45% of the overall score.
In the environmental impact category, seven Australian universities are ranked in the world’s top 100, with USW ranked =18 globally. Australian universities tend to do less well on this category compared to the social impact and governance categories. In part, Australia’s weaker performance is influenced by the type of research undertaken in universities and the lack of national investment on research and development. This category contains 17 indicators across three lenses and accounts for 45% of the overall score.
In the governance category, 16 universities are ranked in the world’s top 100, unchanged from last year. Australia’s best performers are UTS = 29 and Monash at =36. Deakin, Griffith, James Cook, RMIT and Western Sydney are ranked in the world’s top 50. The governance category contains 10 indicators under a single lens called good governance, accounting for 10% of the overall score.
Increased global participation
This ranking includes 1994 universities worldwide, an increase of 250 from last year. This is also 1294 more than the inaugural 2023 edition of 700 universities.
Interestingly, the Sustainability Ranking is now 493 institutions bigger than the 2026 edition of its World University Rankings released last June. Conversely, participation in Times Higher Education Impact Rankings has increased from 462 in 2019 to 2318 in 2025. There is an increased institutional appetite for different nuances on ascertaining a university’s contribution to society and the economy; however, there is still significant reliance on bibliometric, reputation, and other imperfect measures unsuitable on a global scale. Once again, it’s important to place rankings within regional and national contexts.
Methodological construct
To construct this ranking, QS makes use of data from a range of sources. Information on bibliometrics is drawn from Elsevier’s Scopus, accounting for 35%of the overall score across the three categories. Information is also drawn from QS – both academic and employer reputation surveys, as well as QS’ own data – which account for 32% of the overall score. For the remaining metrics, accounting for 33% of the overall score, QS draws data from public sources and the institutions themselves.
It’s clear that to do well in QS Sustainability Rankings, institutions must be fully comprehensive, very high in research intensity, and be historical (i.e., 100 years old and more); these stand ahead of anyone else.
Parting thoughts
The year-on-year results that we are seeing in QS Sustainability Rankings suggest that complacency has been a factor. This may be influenced in part by the weaker results we have seen in the reputation surveys in recent years, but it is also important to highlight the importance for institutions in staying focused on their core mission and giving time to realising improvement initiatives. As always, rankings tend to reflect past performance.
Angel Calderon is Director, Strategic Insights at RMIT University and is a member of the advisory board to QS World University Rankings.