Browse the full results of theÌýImpact Rankings 2025

°Õ³ó±ðÌý̽»¨ÊÓƵÌýImpact Rankings are the only global performance tables that assess universities against the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. WeÌýuse carefully calibrated indicators to provide comprehensive and balanced comparisons on sustainability across four broad areas:Ìýresearch,Ìýstewardship,ÌýoutreachÌý²¹²Ô»åÌýteaching.

Discover how universities are ranked, the indicators are used, and why theÌýTHEÌýImpact Rankings are trusted benchmarks for globalÌýuniversity performance on sustainability.

Key criteria forÌý̽»¨ÊÓƵÌýImpact Rankings

Four core pillars of evaluation

1. Research:Ìýthe most obvious and traditional way that a university might help deliver the SDGs is by creating research in relevant topics.

2. Stewardship:Ìýuniversities are custodians of significant resources; not just physical resources but also their employees, faculty and students. How they act as stewards is one of the key factors in delivering the SDGs.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

3. Outreach:Ìýplace is critical in higher education, and the work that universities do with their local, regional, national and international communities is another key way that they can be more sustainable.

4. Teaching:Ìýteaching plays a critical role, both in ensuring that there are enough skilled practitioners to deliver on the SDGs, and in making sure that all alumni take forward the key lessons of sustainability into their future careers.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Which SDGs are included?

There are 17 UN SDGs, and we evaluate university performance on all of them:

• SDG 1 –Ìýno poverty
• SDG 2 –Ìýzero hunger
• SDG 3 –Ìýgood health and well-being
• SDG 4 –Ìýquality education
• SDG 5 –Ìýgender equality
• SDG 6 –Ìýclean water and sanitation
• SDG 7 –Ìýaffordable and clean energy
• SDG 8 –Ìýdecent work and economic growth
• SDG 9 –Ìýindustry, innovation and infrastructure
• SDG 10 –Ìýreduced inequalities
• SDG 11 –Ìýsustainable cities and communities
• SDG 12 –Ìýresponsible consumption and production
• SDG 13 –Ìýclimate action
• SDG 14 –Ìýlife below water
• SDG 15 –Ìýlife on land
• SDG 16 –Ìýpeace, justice and strong institutions
• SDG 17 –Ìýpartnerships for the goals

Universities can submit data on as many of these SDGs as they are able. Each SDG has aÌýseries of metrics that are used to evaluate the performance ofÌýthe university inÌýthat SDG.

Any university that provides data on SDG 17 and at least three other SDGs is included inÌýthe overall Impact Rankings table.

As well as the overall ranking, we also publish the results of each individual SDG in 17 separate tables.

How are the Impact Rankings created?

Metrics included for each SDG

EachÌýSDG ranking is based on a range of bespoke indicators and metrics,Ìýrelated to the theme of the goal.

There are three categories of metrics within each SDG:

1. Research metrics are derived from data supplied by Elsevier. For each SDG, a specific query has been created that narrows the scope of the metric to papers relevant to that SDG. This is supplemented by publications identified by artificial intelligence. As with the World University Rankings, we are using a five‑year window between 2019 and 2023. The only exception is the metric onÌýpatents that cite research under SDGÌý9, which relates toÌýthe time frame in which the patents were published rather than the time frame of the research itself. The metrics chosen for the bibliometrics differ by SDG and there are always at least two bibliometric measures used.

2. Continuous metricsÌýmeasure contributions to impact that vary continually across a range – for example, the number of graduates with a health-related degree. These are usually normalised to the size of the institution.

3. When we ask about policies and initiatives – for example, the existence of mentoring programmes – our metrics require universities to provideÌýevidenceÌýto support their claims. In these cases, we give credit for the evidence, and for the evidence being public. These metrics are not usually size-normalised.ÌýEvidence is evaluated against a set of criteria, and decisions are cross-validated where there is uncertainty. Evidence need not be exhaustive – we are looking for examples that demonstrate best practice at the institutions concerned.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

°Õ³ó±ðÌýbroad indicatorsÌýfor the 17 SDGs areÌýlisted below.ÌýThe detailed metrics are outlined in the full methodology document at the bottom of this page. In general, the data used refer to the closest academic year to January to December 2023.

SDG 1: no povertyÌý

• Research on poverty (27%)
• Proportion of students receiving financial aid (27%)
• University anti-poverty programmes (23%)
• Community anti-poverty programmes (23%)

SDG 2:Ìýzero hunger

• Research related to hunger (27%)
• Campus food wasteÌý(15.4%)
• Student hunger (19.2%)
• Proportion of graduates in food sustainability (19.2%)
• National hunger (19.2%)

SDG 3:Ìýgood health and well-being

• Research on health and well-being (27%)
• Proportion ofÌýhealth graduates (34.6%)
• Collaborations and health services (38.4%)

SDG 4: quality education

• Research onÌýearly years and lifelong learning education (27%)
• Proportion ofÌýgraduates with a teaching qualification (15.4%)
• Lifelong learning measures (26.8%)
• Proportion of first-generation studentsÌý(30.8%)

SDG 5: gender equalityÌýÌý

• Research on the study of gender equalityÌý(27%)
• Proportion of first-generation female students (15.4%)
• Student access measuresÌý(15.4%)
• Proportion of seniorÌýfemaleÌýacademics (15.4%)
• Proportion of women receiving degrees (11.5%)
• Women's progress measures (15.3%)

SDG 6: clean water and sanitation

• Research onÌýclean water and sanitation (27%)
• Water consumptionÌý(19%)
• Water care (23%)
• Water reuse (12%)
• Water in the community (19%)

SDG 7:Ìýaffordable and clean energy

• Research onÌýaffordable and clean energy (27%)
• Clean energy measuresÌý(23%)
• Energy useÌý(17%)
• Energy andÌýthe community (23%)
• Low-carbon energy use (10%)

SDG 8:Ìýdecent work and economic growth

• Research onÌýeconomic growth and employmentÌý(27%)
• Employment practicesÌý(19.6%)
• Expenditure per employee (15.4%)
• Proportion of students taking work placementsÌý(19%)
• Proportion ofÌýemployeesÌýon secure contracts (19%)

SDG 9:Ìýindustry, innovation and infrastructure

• Research onÌýindustry, innovation and infrastructure (11.6%)
• ±Ê²¹³Ù±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌý(15.4%)
• University spin-offsÌý(34.6%)
• Research income from industry (38.4%)

SDG 10:Ìýreduced inequalities

• Research onÌýreduced inequalitiesÌý(27%)
• First-generation studentsÌý(15.5%)
• Students from developing countries (15.5%)
• Proportion of students and staff with disabilities (23%)
• Measures against discrimination (19%)

SDG 11:Ìýsustainable cities and communities

• Research onÌýsustainable cities and communitiesÌý(27%)
• Support of arts and heritageÌý(22.6%)
• Expenditure on arts and heritage (15.3%)
• Sustainable practices (35.1%)

SDG 12:Ìýresponsible consumption and productionÌý

• Research onÌýresponsible consumption and production (27%)
• °¿±è±ð°ù²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô²¹±ôÌý³¾±ð²¹²õ³Ü°ù±ð²õÌý(26.7%)
• Proportion of recycled wasteÌý(27%)
• Publication of a sustainability report (19.3%)

SDG 13:Ìýclimate action

• Research onÌýclimate action (27%)
• Low-carbon energy useÌý(27%)
• Environmental education measures (23%)
• Carbon neutrality (23%)

SDG 14:Ìýlife below water

• Research onÌýlife below water (27%)
• Education related to aquatic ecosystems (15.3%)
• Supporting aquatic ecosystemsÌý(19.4%)
• Water-sensitive waste disposal (19.3%)
• Maintaining a local ecosystem (19%)

SDG 15:Ìýlife on land

• Research onÌýlife on land (27%)
• Education related to land ecosystemsÌý(23%)
• Supporting land ecosystems through actionÌý(27%)
• Land-sensitive waste-disposalÌý(23%)

SDG 16:Ìýpeace, justice and strong institutions

• Research onÌýpeace and justice (27%)
• University governanceÌýmeasuresÌý(26.6%)
• Working with government (23.2%)
• Proportion of graduates in law and civil enforcement 23.2%

SDG 17:Ìýpartnerships for the goals

• ResearchÌýrelating to the SDGs or with lower- or lower-middle-income countriesÌý(27.1%)
• Relationships to support the goalsÌý(18.5%)
• Publication of SDG reports (27.2%)
• Education on the SDGs (27.2%)

Producing the overall ranking

A university’sÌýtotal score in a given year is calculated by combining its score in SDGÌý17 with its best three results on the remaining 16 SDGs. SDGÌý17 accounts for 22Ìýper cent of theÌýtotal score, while the other SDGs each carry a weighting of 26Ìýper cent. This means that different universities are scored based on a different set of SDGs, depending on their focus.ÌýThe score for the overall ranking is an average of the past two years’ total scores.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

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

The individual SDG tables display an institution’s score for that SDG as well as its score in the overall Impact Rankings, if applicable.

Inclusion criteria for Impact Rankings

The ranking is open to any university that teaches at undergraduate or postgraduate level. Although research activities form part of the method­ology, there is noÌýminimum research requirement for participation.

THEÌýreserves the right to exclude universities that it believes have falsified data, or are noÌýlonger in good standing.

Data collection

Institutions provide and sign off their institutional data for use in the rankings. On the rare occasions when a particular data point is not provided, we enter a value of zero.

Interpreting the resultsÌý

The Impact Rankings are inherently dynamic: they are growing rapidly each year as many more universities seek to demonstrate their commitment to delivering the SDGs by joining our database; and they allow institutions to demonstrate rapid improvement year-on-year, by introducing clear new policies, for example, or by providing clearer and more open evidence of their progress. Therefore, we expect and welcome regular change in the ranked order of institutions (and we discourage year-on-year comparisons) as universities continue to drive this urgent agenda.

Editor's note: September 2025

After the publication of the Impact Rankings 2025, Indiana University Indianapolis contacted us about a technical error relating to their bibliometric data. The matter was reviewed under our corrections policy, and we agreed to recalculate the bibliometric scores for the institution.ÌýÌý

The university’s corrected positions in the Impact Rankings are as follows:Ìý

As per THE’s rankings correction policy, the amendment made only affects the university in question. We do not rerun the complete ranking. All other universities maintain their original rank.Ìý

THE is committed to transparency and accountability across all of its rankings. Our corrections policy is available to view here.Ìý

How the Impact Rankings support decision-making

For students and academics

• Identify the top universities in specificÌýareas of sustainable development
• Understand the focus areas of each institution

For universities

• Benchmark sustainability performance against global standards
• Highlight strengths to attract international students and partnerships

The methodology was developed in conjunction with our partnersÌýÌýand Elsevier, and after consultation and input from individual universities, academics and sector groups.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

.