Fostering Local Sustainability: How Higher Education Institutions Advance SDGs through Community Engagement.

Fostering Local Sustainability: How Higher Education Institutions Advance SDGs through Community Engagement. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Fostering Local Sustainability: How Higher Education Institutions Advance SDGs through Community Engagement. Ha Vien, Edoardo Eichberg, Andrea Cuesta-Claros, Aurelie Charles This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6058894/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract At the midpoint of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) implementation, current progress underscores the need for a more community-driven approach to co-producing and implementing SDG-focused initiatives. Beyond their traditional roles in teaching and research, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have the potential to significantly impact local SDG efforts through outreach and engagement activities. This study examines the existing literature on HEIs’ contributions to SDG implementation via community engagement programs. Drawing from a thematic analysis, we propose an analytical framework to analyze and compare key characteristics, including modes, actors, SDG intensity, motivations, roles, and implementation strategies of HEIs’ community engagement initiatives. This framework is supported by comparative case studies from Taiwan/China, Brazil, and the United Kingdom (UK). The study reveals that HEI-initiated SDG implementation at the local level is comprehensive, addressing multiple SDGs with diverse actors and motivations within a polycentric ecosystem. By emphasizing HEI-led local SDG initiatives, this article provides the foundation for transformative SDG implementation by universities. SDG localization living labs university co-production sustainability community engagement polycentricity urban sustainability Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction The slogan ‘‘Think Globally but Act Locally’’ has gained renewed importance at the midpoint of SDGs implementation. Adopted in 2015, the Agenda 2030 and its 17 SDGs were envisioned as a set of global goals for sustainable development. However, mid-term assessments present a grim picture: the world is falling short of achieving any of the SDGs by their 2030 deadline (Sachs et al., 2023 ; United Nations, 2023 ). In response, scholars around the world have urged the localization of the SDGs, advocating for their implementation across various levels of society, geographic regions, and sectors (Malekpour et al., 2024 ; Sahle et al., 2024 ). While these calls for SDG localization acknowledge that global initiatives are undoubtedly essential for long-term solutions, they also recognize that decentralized efforts that tailor priorities to local contexts are equally vital. Such decentralized approaches have a strong potential to address the needs of local communities while fostering responsibility and openness within the local community (ElMassah & Mohieldin, 2020 ). Among the various actors contributing to the localization of the SDGs, universities or HEIs are increasingly recognized as pivotal contributors to the attainment of SDGs (Cuesta-Claros et al., 2023 ; Parr et al., 2022 ). The growing recognition of HEIs as key players in SDG implementation has attracted scholarly attention to how these institutions integrate the SDGs into their core missions (Chankseliani & McCowan, 2021 ; Fia et al., 2023 ; Serafini et al., 2022 ). These studies include examining HEIs’ first mission of teaching and learning, particularly evident in efforts to integrate the SDGs into curricula and advancing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (i.e., target 4.7) (Aleixo et al., 2020 ; Brugmann et al., 2019 ; Fia et al., 2023 ; Kelly et al., 2023 ; Galvão & Green, 2025 ). Other studies have focused on the universities’ second research mission, which involves studying and advancing the SDGs through interdisciplinary and collaborative research, academic publications, and knowledge-sharing platforms (Olawumi & Chan, 2018 ; Goyeneche et al., 2022 ). Moreover, scholars have also analyzed how universities engage with the SDGs through their third mission activities - broadly understood as a contribution to society, outreach activities, and community engagement (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020 ; López et al., 2019 ; Neary & Osborne, 2018 ; Purcell et al., 2019 ; Fia et al., 2023 ). When these third mission activities are explicitly oriented towards addressing sustainability issues, they align with an emerging "fourth mission" of "co-production for sustainability" (Trencher et al., 2014 a). Universities adopting this fourth mission engage with a wide array of actors to support and enable sustainability transformations (Trencher et al., 2014 a). Despite the growing body of research on how HEIs integrate the SDGs into their missions, whether individually or in an interlinked manner (Renaud et al., 2022 ; Vien & Galik, 2024 ), coverage remains uneven and incomplete across different missions, levels of analysis, and positions (Fia et al., 2023 ). This is evident in reviews from Fia et al. ( 2023 ) and Serafini et al. ( 2022 ), which highlight a notable gap in scholarship on the third and fourth missions of HEIs. This gap may be attributed to the dominant perception of HEIs primarily as educational institutions focused on teaching, learning, and research, rather than actors embedded in society bearing responsibilities towards their local communities. These responsibilities may be mandated by law (De Negreiros & Dos Santos, 2024 ), shaped by cultural norms, a result of national histories, or influenced by other drivers such as international rankings or funding for international cooperation (Vien & Galik, 2024 ). In response to this gap, this article investigates how universities engage with external communities to support the implementation and localization of the SDGs at the local level. Specifically, this study examines the key characteristics of HEIs’ community engagement programs, including modes of SDG community engagement, SDG intensity, motivations, actors, and implementation approaches. This analysis is grounded in a review of existing literature and case studies featuring diverse HEIs from Brazil, Taiwan, and the UK. This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 elaborates on the concept SDG localization and introduces polycentric governance as a concept to underscore the relevance of university-led SDG action. This section also traces the evolution of HEI’s missions, highlighting the emerging focus on co-creating sustainability solutions in collaboration with society and non-academic actors. Section 3 outlines the methodological approach, which comprises a macro-level analysis used to develop the analytical framework, and a micro-level analysis in which the framework is applied to the case study involving three distinct cases. Section 4 presents the analytical framework, while Section 5 details the findings from the case study. Finally, Sections 6 discusses the findings and Section 7 presents the conclusions. 2. HEIs and SDG Engagement: Context and Concepts 2.1. A polycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level The slow progress toward achieving the SDGs by their 2030 deadline (United Nations, 2023 ) has intensified the urgency to get them back on track. The mid-term review of the SDGs highlights the need to mobilize both state and non-state stakeholders across multiple levels of implementation. Scholars have emphasized the importance of rethinking current approaches to SDG implementation, particularly through the lens of localization (Clement et al., 2023 ; Ningrum et al., 2023 ; Reuter, 2023 ). SDG localization refers to the process of adapting global goals to specific contexts. This involves aligning the SDGs with local needs and priorities (Galvão et al, 2023 ; Führ, 2025 ), embedding the goals within local rules, norms, and shared strategies (Vien, 2025 ) to cultivate an SDG culture (Cabral & Galvão, 2022 ), and executing tangible actions at the local level. The localization of the SDGs can generate tensions between global ambitions and local circumstances, between institutional stability and transformation, and between long-term objectives and short-term policy demands (Bexell et al., 2025 ). Localization encompasses all scales below the global level (e.g., national, state, local, and individual level), any geographic areas (e.g., Europe or Africa), and any actors (e.g., local governments, private sectors, or universities) (Malekpour et al., 2024 ). For example, many cities worldwide are actively engaged in SDG implementation through Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) (Ortiz-Moya & Reggiani, 2023 ), which, while they do not have official status, serve as valuable tools for self-assessment and reporting. Similarly, universities across the world are increasingly participating in SDG- and sustainability-focused ranking systems such as the QS Sustainability Rankings, the Times Higher Education (THE) University Impact Rankings, and the STARS ranking by AASHE. Additionally, a few pioneering universities, such as Carnegie Mellon University and the University of California, Davis, have adapted the VLR model and initiated their own Voluntary University Reviews (VURs) to assess and report their contributions to the SDGs. SDG localization closely aligns with the concept of polycentric governance or polycentrism - a governance model fostering simultaneous action across multiple actors and scales (see Fig. 1 ). In polycentric systems, diverse actors engage in dialogical processes to co-create sustainable development strategies that reflect their unique contexts, ultimately leading to more equitable, inclusive, and transformative outcomes. The multi-actor dimension of polycentric governance involves the engagement of various entities like policymakers, business stakeholders, and local communities in collective action. These actors can introduce diverse mechanisms to govern the system (e.g., subsidies, tax incentives, and regulations) (Sovacool, 2011 ). The multi-scalar dimension of polycentric governance refers to the integration of efforts across different levels, including local, state, regional, and global levels see Fig. 1 ). In this paper, we do not focus on the multi-scalar dimension of polycentric governance. In other words, we do not aim to capture complex relations across multiple vertical scales (e.g., global/national, national/local). Instead, we focus on the horizontal scale at the local level, examining the involvement of diverse actors in SDG implementation. At the local level, polycentric efforts involve multiple centers of partial authority working toward SDG implementation. These actors (or centers of partial authority) include local governments, the private sector, local communities, local non-profit organizations, local non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, and, of course, HEIs (see Fig. 2 ). In terms of SDG implementation, regardless of its voluntary nature, such actors make decisions related to their SDG actions independently of each other. However, their outcomes jointly affect everyone involved and residing within the surrounding community. Various actors collectively employ a variety of mechanisms, such as lobbying, public campaigns, community engagement, and strategic partnerships, to drive social change. Even decisions not to act can impact the status quo, shaping public perception, policymaking processes, and advocacy coalitions. 2.2. HEIs as a center of SDGs-related community engagement at the local level HEIs have increasingly emerged as pivotal actors in supporting sustainable transformations among many other actors under the polycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level. Dating back to the late twelfth century, the University of Paris became the first institution to adopt a singular focus on teaching and training under the Catholic Church (Haskins, 1927 ). In the nineteenth century, German universities expanded this traditional teaching mission to include research, inspired by the Humboldtian Reform that integrated research into the University of Berlin (Elton, 2008 ). Over time, HEIs have become central to both education and impactful research. Over a century later, a third mission emerged to reflect the evolving role of universities in contributing to society. This mission has been interpreted in various ways by scholars and practitioners. A dominant interpretation is offered by the Triple Helix Model by Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff ( 1995 ), which positions universities as collaborators with industry and governments to foster innovation and economic development. Similarly, Trencher et al. ( 2014 a), Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz ( 1998 ), and Gunasekara ( 2006 ) conceptualize this mission as the transfer and commercialization of technology, portraying universities as drivers of economic growth and as “Entrepreneurial Universities” focused on technology transfer. Thus, in this paper, we refer to this economically oriented interpretation of the third mission as the third mission-as-technology-transfer . This terminology also allows us to distinguish it from other interpretations of the third missions that are explained below. In response to climate change and sustainability crises, Trencher et al. ( 2014 a) proposed a fourth mission: co-creation for sustainability. This mission, driven by global sustainability challenges, envisions universities as "Transformative Universities" that engage not only with government and industry as framed in the Triple Helix model, but also the public and civil society, as articulated in the Quadruple Helix Model (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009 ). Similarly, scholars in transdisciplinary sustainability research argue that HEIs should prioritize serving the public good over becoming entrepreneurial, commercialized entities or extensions of political or governmental agendas (Scholz, 2020 ). The "science for and with society" approach within transdisciplinary sustainability transitions (Klein et al., 2001; Scholz et al., 2000 ; Seidl et al., 2013 ) encourages HEIs to engage actively with society, focusing on developing, applying, and integrating scientific knowledge with other forms of knowledge, particularly the experiential expertise of practitioners, to advance sustainable development (Scholz, 2020 ). In contrast to the third-mission-as-technology-transfer interpretation, some researchers conceptualize the third mission as community engagement (Goddard et al., 2016 ; McCowan, 2019 ; McCowan, 2023 ). In Latin America, this mission is often framed as critical outreach, engaging with diverse societal actors, and aiming to empower communities. Thus, Trencher et al.’s ( 2014 a) fourth mission and the third mission-as-community-engagement share significant overlaps, which can lead to using them interchangeably by some scholars. Some similarities include the emphasis on opening universities to societal actors, addressing social and environmental challenges, fostering multi-actor collaboration, and integrating sustainability into all university areas. From a Freirean perspective (Freire, 2020 ), community engagement transcends isolated, project-based collaborations. Under a Freirean lens, community engagement encompasses a dialogical relationship that connects the internal routines, initiatives, and actions of the university with the external realities and needs of local communities. This perspective argues that it is crucial to distinguish between universities merely providing benefits to their communities and society and actively engaging with society to co-create and deliver those benefits. Community engagement, therefore, should be understood as a dynamic, reciprocal process in which university activities are shaped through active listening and meaningful collaboration with community members. This ensures that institutional practices are guided and informed by community perspectives prior to implementation. This approach embodies Freire’s vision of education as a liberatory practice, empowering both the university and the community to co-create sustainable solutions that foster social transformation. Similar to the multiple interpretations of the third mission, community engagement also encompasses a wide range of forms or modes. The OECD-CERI (1982) identifies five modes of university-community interaction: (i) making university facilities available to the community, (ii) fulfilling community requests, (iii) assessing community needs, (iv) analyzing problems at the community’s request, and (v) providing solutions on behalf of the community. Building on this, Bravo and Marie ( 1992 ) proposed a developmental model of university-society engagement, outlining five modes of engagement: (i) information sharing, (ii) public relations, (iii) dissemination of academic findings, (iv) cultural influence, and (v) critical engagement, which involves participatory social change across social, economic, and environmental areas. Likewise, Montesinos et al. ( 2008 ) categorize engagement into three areas: (i) international collaboration, (ii) lifelong learning, and (iii) science and technology parks. Hazelkorn ( 2016 ) proposes a framework distinguishing three engagement approaches: (i) social justice, focused on students, service-learning, and community empowerment, typically led by student or teaching offices; (ii) economic development, centered on economic growth, technology transfer, and regional partnerships; and (iii) public good, promoting a transformative agenda that integrates engagement into the institution’s mission, governance, teaching, and research. Notably, these modes primarily focus on activities conducted for society rather than in collaboration with it. In the 2000s, scholars in co-creation, transdisciplinarity, and community engagement began categorizing university-community interactions by depth of engagement- from superficial to deeply embedded, and from transactional to transformational. Himmelman ( 2001 ) explores these variations through the lens of power and reciprocity, distinguishing between collaborative betterment - short-term, transactional projects that do not shift power - and collaborative empowerment, where communities lead, and power is shared. He argues that true transformation requires deliberative civic engagement, fostering democratic participation and accountability. Similarly, Hakkarainen et al. ( 2022 ) categorized types of knowledge co-production as: (i) outcome-oriented (with non-academics as informants); (ii) practical and pragmatic (involving non-academics as stakeholders); (iii) empowering (with non-academics as partners); and (iv) transformative (where non-academics serve as co-researchers). Lastly, Trencher et al. ( 2017 ) defined different intensities of sustainability co-creation, including low, medium, and high levels of engagement. In recent decades, universities have increasingly integrated sustainability across teaching, research, operations, and sector practices, positioning themselves as key sustainability change agents (Brundiers et al., 2021 ; Stephens et al., 2008 ). The adoption of the SDGs in 2015 has further amplified their role in addressing global challenges through SDG localization (McCowan, 2023 ). Although substantial work has examined universities' third mission of community engagement (Goddard et al., 2016 ) and fourth mission (Trencher et al., 2013 , 2014 a, 2014 b), few studies explore HEIs’ community engagement in SDG localization. Developing an analytical framework focused on HEIs’ SDG-related community engagement - covering engagement modes, key actors, activities, motivations, implementation strategies, and roles of HEIs - offers a structured approach to understanding how HEIs engage for and with society. 3. Methods This section outlines the methods used in this study. This section begins with a description of the thematic analysis of existing literature to develop an analytical framework that captures the key dimensions of HEIs’ community engagement. The second part explains how this analytical framework was applied to the case study, consisting of three cases from different global regions, offering insights into how HEIs operationalize and support community engagement in diverse contexts. 3.1. Literature review and thematic analysis: Rationale and data collection This thematic analysis aims to synthesize existing research on HEIs’ community engagement in SDG localization, identify key characteristics, and develop a structured analytical framework to guide future studies. Our research is driven by the question of whether there are identifiable commonalities and key characteristics shared by HEIs’ community engagement globally in this area. To address this question, we aim to establish a foundation that can guide future research in this area. Our framework responds to seven key questions that we identified as essential for understanding the diverse dimensions of cross-sector community engagement by HEIs and for uncovering commonalities and distinctions among them: (1) What are the modes of SDG-related community engagement used by HEIs? (2) How are these modes defined? (3) Who are the primary actors involved? (4) Do these modes target specific SDGs, and what is the intensity of engagement? (5) What motivates HEIs to engage with their communities? (6) How are these activities implemented—are they driven by top-down directives, grassroots initiatives, or a combination of both, and to what extent? (7) What roles do HEIs play throughout the engagement process? The development of these questions draws on insights from existing literature, building on prior analyses of HEIs’ community engagement efforts both with and for society (Benneworth, 2013 ; Himmelman, 2001 ; OECD-CERI, 1982; Trencher et al., 2017 ). While these studies offer valuable foundations, our research identifies limitations within their frameworks. First, none of the existing frameworks fully address the seven key questions central to our analysis; instead, they primarily consist of case studies without offering a comprehensive framework that HEIs can use as a reference to understand their contributions to SDG localization through community engagement. Second, these frameworks do not capture the diverse characteristics unique to SDG-related community engagement that are central to our empirical study. Third, they have not been specifically applied within the context of SDG-oriented community engagement. The macro element of our study includes a literature review on HEIs’ community engagement and outreach activities (see Fig. 3 ). For this, we reviewed: (1) university activities under the third mission-as-community-engagement (Goddard et al., 2016 ; Hazelkorn, 2016 ; Benneworth, 2013 ); and (2) university activities under the fourth mission of co-creation for sustainability (Trencher et al., 2013 , 2014 a, 2014 b, 2017 ). These reviews, along with insights from existing frameworks with similar approaches to SDG localization in HEIs, form the basis of the framework’s seven categories and their possible answers for each question, detailed in Section 4. The articles were selected and scanned from February to July 2024, using the Scopus database. Such a choice is justified because the articles are cited in multidisciplinary scientific literature databases, widely accepted by researchers, and include high-impact articles in different fields. The authors searched for articles in English with published years from 2015–2024, through the Boolean keyword search: (Universit* OR HEI* OR higher education institution*) AND (Sustainable Development Goal* OR SDG* OR Agenda 2030) AND (community engag* OR outreach activit* OR living lab* OR co-product* OR collaborat* OR service learning OR co-creat* for sustainability OR co-product*) AND (framework OR approach). A total of 508 articles were initially found. Two authors conducted a parallel review of the titles and abstracts of the initial articles, resolving conflicts as needed. The relevance of the papers was determined using two sets of criteria. Papers were included if they focused on SDG-related transdisciplinary research, public engagement, and community engagement by universities, as verified by scanning abstracts for the term “SDGs” and reviewing content. Additionally, the articles needed to provide empirical evidence of outcomes related to SDGs, sustainability, or collaborative research, and be published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2015 and July 2024. Papers were excluded if they did not involve SDGs in higher education, focused solely on interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary practices without engaging non-academic stakeholders, or were non-peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, or editorials. Of the 469 articles, 352 were deemed irrelevant, and 3 were in wrong focus, leaving 112 for further examination. From this point, the authors conducted a quick scan of abstracts and, when necessary, full readings to identify the modes, actors, SDG intensity, motivations, roles, and implementation approaches of HEIs’ community engagement programs. The literature review of 112 papers informed the development of the framework by identifying recurring themes, methodological approaches, and key findings that consistently emerged across the literature. This systematic approach allows for a clear articulation of how these insights were integrated into the analytical framework's design(see Appendix 1 for the final sample of articles). 3.2. Comparative case study analysis The micro-level of this study applied the analytical framework to cases, complementing the macro-level literature review by offering insights into the unique approaches HEIs adopt in advancing community engagement for SDG implementation. To qualify, HEIs must: (1) aim to promote SDGs through community engagement and outreach; (2) collaborate across sectors, including academia, government, industry, nonprofits, and local communities; (3) include initiatives where university representatives lead or co-lead; and (4) be listed in the 2024 QS Sustainability Rankings. From here, the selection of comparative cases to refine the analytical framework considered geographical location, SDG presence, university type (public/private, research/teaching-focused), and data availability on community engagement activities (see Table 1 ). Drawing from the 2024 QS Sustainability Rankings, we compared three universities: The University of Manchester (UK), ranked 3rd overall and representing a top institution in the Global North; the University of São Paulo (Brazil), ranked 67th as the highest-ranked institution from the Global South; and National Taiwan University (Taiwan), ranked 94th, also from the Global South. This comparison seeks to illuminate potential discrepancies in sustainability practices across the Global North and South. Although the length of the paper, which integrates both theoretical and empirical contributions, does not allow the authors to extend the analysis to additional institutions at this stage, the framework’s application beyond the selected case studies, in HEIs from other regions, for example, could shed light on the varied ways in which community engagement and SDG integration are conceptualized and enacted globally. The analysis is non-exhaustive, utilizing archival research, secondary data, and publicly available documents, alongside an internal institutional review, with no conflicts of interest declared by the authors. Table 1 QS detailed rankings of the case studies. Source: 2024 QS Sustainability Rankings Criteria Case 1. University of Manchester Case 2 University of São Paulo Case 3 National Taiwan University QS Sustainability Ranking QS Sustainability Overall Score 3rd 98 67th 85 94th 82.2 Environmental Impact Environmental Sustainability Environmental Education Environmental Research 89.5 94.6 98.2 65.4 81.5 89.4 69 75.6 87.4 Social Impact Equality Knowledge Exchange Impact of Education Employability & Opportunities Health & Wellbeing 96.6 99.9 79.3 99.1 99.8 85.6 99 63.7 90 88.9 76.5 78.6 77.3 93.6 79.3 Governance 99.8 88.2 89.7 Having objectives to promote SDGs Yes Yes Yes Involve partners from diverse sectors in SDG implementation Yes Yes Yes Community engagement initiatives led by university actors Yes Yes Yes Area University type Student Mix Global North Public Research International 45% Global South Public Research International 2% Global South Public Research International 16% 4. Analytical framework: Macro analysis 4.1. Overview This section introduces an analytical framework for examining HEIs’ community engagement in SDG localization. Drawing on a comprehensive review of the literature, this framework is designed to capture the multifaceted nature of university engagement in SDG localization. Table 2 presents the framework, which consists of the following seven key themes: (1) Modes of engagement, (2) Conceptualization of engagement mode, (3) Involved actors, (4) SDG Intensity of engagement, (5) Motivations, (6) Implementation and engagement approaches, and (7) Roles of HEIs in SDG localization. Table 2 Summary of Seven-Level Framework of HEIs’ SDGs-related Community Engagement at the Local Level. Source: Authors elaborated and adapted from Benneworth ( 2013 ), Hazelkorn ( 2016 ), Himmelman ( 2001 ) and Trencher et al. ( 2013 , 2014 a, 2017 ). 7 levels of framework Category explanation Possible answers to each category 1. Mode of SDGs-related community engagement What is the mode of community engagement activity? 1. Volunteerism & Student Faculty/ Staff-led Activities 2. Service Learning & Social Service 3. Adult Education and Lifelong Learning 4. Public Engagement 5. Public Debate 6. Living Labs 7. Service Provision & Infrastructure Sharing 8. Policy Advocacy 9. Technology Transfer 10. Expert Consulting 2. Definition of Mode How do we conceptualize it? Definitions for each of the modes are explained in Table 3 . 3. Actors Who actively participates in or influences the initiative? 1. Faculty 2. Administration, including HEIs’ leaders 3. Students 4. Local governments 5. Local business 6. Local communities 7. NGOs/NPOs 4. SDG Intensity 1. Which SDGs are targeted? Does the engagement activity approach the SDGs in a focused manner (only one or two SDGs are addressed, dealt with somehow in isolation) or comprehensively (simultaneously addressing multiple SDGs)? Which pillars of sustainability? 1. SDGs; Comprehensive/ Focused; Environmental/ economic/ social sustainability 2. Over how many years? (i.e., duration) 2. Duration 3. How often do engagement activities happen? 3. Frequency 4. What is the outcome of the engagement activities? 4. Outcome measurement (effectiveness, efficiency, equity, political/ tech/ administrative feasibility …) 5. Motivation Why was the collaboration/ community engagement activity formed? 1. Missional 2. Funding 3. Scientific/ scholarly 4. Social contribution/ community relations 5. Developmental/Strategic 6. Entrepreneurial 6. Implementation & Engagement Magnitude 1. What is the implementation approach? 1 (a) Top-down (b) Bottom-up (c) Mixed 2. Magnitude of engagement between partners? (from the level of “for society” to the level of “with society”) 2. (a) Knowledge transfer and sharing of universities and non-academic actors implement transferred knowledge. (b) Knowledge co-production based on non-academic partners' skills. (c) Equal co-production with empowered non-academic partners. (d) Non-academic partners as co-researchers, integrating diverse knowledge. 3. Are there any resources from the locality? 3. Yes/No financial support from the locality 7. Role of HEIs What is the role of HEIs in their relationship with other authorities in the polycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level? 1. Inventor/ innovator 2. Revitalizer/ retrofitter 3. Builder/ developer 4. Director/ linker 5. Scientific advisor/ communicator 6. Facilitator/ empowerer 7. Network connector 8. Neutral convener 4.2. Mode of SDGs-related Community Engagement and its Conceptualization The first two categories - the mode of community engagement and its conceptualization - constitute the foundational elements of the proposed framework. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, the authors identified ten distinct modes of SDG-related community engagement by HEIs, although the possibility of additional modes remains open. These ten modes, defined in Table 3 , encompass a broad range of activities including: (1) Volunteerism & Student/Faculty/ Staff-led Activities, (2) Service Learning and Social Service, (3) Adult Education and Lifelong Learning, (4) Public Engagement, (5) Public Debate, (6) Living Labs, (7) Service Provision and Infrastructure Sharing, (8) Policy Advocacy, (9) Technology Transfer, and (10) Expert Consulting. Importantly, these modes are not mutually exclusive; universities may simultaneously adopt multiple forms of engagement. Such adoption may be coordinated as part of an institution-wide SDG localization strategy or may emerge independently within specific departments or units. Table 3 Detailed 10 modes of HEIs’ SDG-related community engagement activities at the local level. Source: Authors’ elaboration. Mode Definition/Conceptualization Reference Examples 1. Volunteerism and Student/ Faculty/ Staff-led Activities - Student, faculty, and/or staff-led grassroots projects aim to address local needs and advance SDG implementation. - Includes student groups and local, national, and international student networks supporting the implementation of SDGs. - Includes student activism. - From Goddard et al. ( 2016 , p.70) - “ Pro-social behaviour that benefits the community and occurs within an organisational setting. This can include students working alongside the local community to salvage an old house or rebuild a community garden as part of a student group activity. Volunteerism is not always connected to academic learning.” Lee et al. ( 2023 ), SDSN Youth (2024) 2. Service Learning / Social Service - An educational approach that combines academic learning objectives with meaningful community service. - Includes service-learning classes (Thomas, 1998) and social service (which is mandatory in some countries… like Mexico) (Portales et al., 2017). - From Goddard et al. ( 2016 , p.70) - “ Pedagogical and curricular engagement, where students and academic staff work collaboratively with community partners and link this work back to the classroom learning, theory, and reflection. ” Brugmann et al. ( 2019 ), Podgórska & Zdonek (2023), Cuesta-Claros et al. ( 2023 ) 3. Adult Education and Lifelong Learning - An educational approach that helps acquire knowledge and skills beyond formal education throughout adulthood, in various settings and formats. - Includes Continuing Professional Development and Continuing Education Programmes of Hard-to-Reach groups. - From Benneworth ( 2013 , p.23) - “ Encouraging hard-to-reach groups to use assets ”. Nkatha & Dzinekkou (2022) 4. Public Engagement - Public engagement includes outreach activities, public communication, awareness raising, and science communication. - Efforts aimed at increasing awareness, inspiring action, and mobilizing stakeholders toward achieving the SDGs, such as using social media to engage online readers on SDGs. - Compared to public debate (mode 5), public engagement focuses on knowledge transfer (i.e., one-way communication). - From Benneworth ( 2013 , p.23) - “ Promoting public understanding and media ” Azmat et al. (2024), Agusdinata ( 2022 ) 5. Public Debate / Facilitator - HEIs can create platforms for public discourse, engaging various stakeholders, and promoting informed debate on sustainable development. - From McCowan ( 2019 , p.219) - “ Universities play an important part in promoting public debate, contributing to deliberation in society, in providing a space for that deliberation to take place, and raising public awareness of critical issues. These activities can take place through community engagement work, public communication of research, or hosting debates and discussions .” - From McCowan ( 2019 , p.228) - “ Universities acting as critical friends to society .” - From Benneworth ( 2013 , p.23) - “ Contributing to the civic life of the region .” Hirsu et al. ( 2021 ), McCowan et al. (2019), Benneworth ( 2013 ) 6. Advocacy - Policy - Partnering with community groups to understand their needs and advocate for policies that address those needs by facilitating dialogues between policymakers and community members. - From El-Jardali et al. (2018, p.3) - Universities “ play a lead role in strengthening the science-policy interface [...] They can work with policymakers and other stakeholders to identify policy priorities/problems, assess policy options, implement solutions, and evaluate policies. ” Frandoloso & Scorsatto (2021) 7. Living Labs - From Tercanli and Jongbloed (2022) - “ An interface for higher education institutions to collaborate with companies, citizens, nonprofit and government organizations to address a variety of problems around social challenges and sustainable development ” - From Trencher et al. ( 2013 , p.154) - “ Engagement of university research and expertise to establish, monitor, and evaluate real-life experiments and social interventions. Use of the urban environment as an open collaboration arena. ” Verdejo et al. ( 2022 ), Leal Filho et al. (2023), Emery et al. (2020) 8. Service Provision / Infrastructure Sharing - From McCowan, 2019 - Health clinics, legal assistance, using university assets (facilities and services such as electricity). In some countries, filling in the gaps in services that should be provided by other actors. - From Benneworth et al. (2013, p.23) - “ Making university assets and services open .” - From Bringle & Hatcher (2002) - “ Community access to facilities and cultural events .” Lockmun-Bissessur et al. ( 2023 ), De Amorim et al. (2020) 9. Technology Transfer - Technology transfer fosters SDG implementation through incubators, accelerators, and beyond. - Mainly one-directional, from university experts to other actors. - From Trencher et al. ( 2014 , p.161) - “ The aim of this channel is [...] the diffusion of green technologies in a specific locality or region .” “ Technology transfer and commercialization initiatives are usually explicitly committed to driving low-carbon growth by fostering business start-ups, employment, training, and the widespread adoption of particular technologies in a specific place and set of stakeholders .” Almansour (2022), Verdejo et al. ( 2022 ) 10. Expert Consulting (Knowledge Transfer) - Providing expert sustainability guidance to diverse actors or expert consulting. - Which could apply to governments (e.g., universities supporting developing VLRs), companies, or communities. - From Benneworth ( 2013 , p.23) - “ Making intellectual contributions as experts .” - Mainly one-directional, from university experts to other actors. Koria et al. (2022), Fischer et al. ( 2021 ) 4.3. Actors in SDGs-related Community Engagement The framework also considers the various actors involved in SDG-related community engagement who actively participate in or influence the initiatives. In this research, we identified seven key actors: faculty, administration, including HEI leaders, students, local governments, local businesses, local communities, and NGOs/NPOs. The literature provides substantial evidence of diverse stakeholders involved in partnerships and collaborations for SDG-related community engagement activities (Bridges & Guo, 2024 ; Chaves-Chaparro et al., 2025 ). Through these partnerships, HEIs can play a pivotal role as engines of sustainable transformation (Agusdinata, 2022 ). Some examples of actors involved in partnerships include startup founders, partners, and employees collaborating with universities to provide public entrepreneurial training (Almansour, 2024 ); universities partnering with local governments to interact with national and subnational governments, businesses, and civil society organizations (Ningrum et al., 2023 ); and collaborating with a nonprofit association to help cultural heritage resource managers (Rosique Rodríguez et al., 2024 ). Students also play a significant role through grassroots leadership and student-led initiatives that bring together diverse stakeholders (Lee et al., 2023 ). Additionally, women faculty members are recognized for their impactful engagement activities that contribute to broader societal influence (Hirsu et al., 2021 ). In one notable case, hundreds of professors, students, tea farmers, residents, churches, and schools collaborated to promote sustainable development in rural communities (Chang & Kua, 2021). 4.4. SDG Intensity The fourth category of the framework concerns the intensity of SDG engagement, which refers to the depth and quality of the modes through which HEIs interact with their communities. Four questions help identify SDG intensity: (1) Which SDGs are targeted in the outreach activities, and are they focused (addressing only one or two SDGs in isolation) or comprehensive (addressing multiple SDGs simultaneously)?, (2) What is the duration of the community engagement activities?, (3) How frequent are these activities?, and (4) What are the outcomes of these activities? Comprehensive approaches are frequently observed in local SDG implementation (e.g., initiatives that integrate economic revitalization, cultural preservation, and youth development (Chang & Kua, 2021). Such outcomes often reflect the interlinkages of multiple SDGs, as discussed in recent scholarship (Pyakurel & Marasini, 2021 ; Vien & Galik, 2024 ). To evaluate the outcomes of these engagements, policymakers are encouraged to apply criteria often recommended by scholars in public policy (Dunn, 2015 ). These criteria include effectiveness (achieving intended goals), efficiency (optimal use of resources), equity (fair distribution of benefits and burdens), and feasibility, encompassing political, technological, and administrative aspects. Together, these evaluative dimensions provide a robust framework for assessing the impact of HEI-led community engagement initiatives in the context of SDG localization. 4.5. Motivation to Promote SDGs-related Community Engagement The fifth category addresses the question of motivation: Why were the SDGs-related community engagement activities formed? Building on the framework proposed by Trencher et al. ( 2013 ) and supported by findings from our literature review, we identified six primary motivations operating at both individual and institutional levels (see Table 2 ). First, missional motivation reflects the university’s commitment to address local challenges as part of its core mission, fostering multi-actor engagements to tackle local issues (Marchigiani & Garofolo, 2023 ). Funding motivation involves the pursuit of financial support, such as green or stimulus funds for urban sustainability (Eichberg & Charles, 2024 ). Scientific or scholarly motivation is driven by the desire to generate and disseminate knowledge through practical applications (Lepore et al., 2021 ). Social contribution or community relations motivation emphasizes the importance of benefiting the community, enhancing university reputation, and strengthening relations, especially with underserved populations (Chang & Kua, 2021). Developmental or strategic motivation focuses on shaping the socio-economic futures and ensuring institutional resilience and survival in the face of sustainability crises (Moyo & Cele, 2021 ). Finally, entrepreneurial motivation seeks to generate income through sustainable real estate, green technology parks, spin-off firms, and consultancy services (Almansour, 2024 ). 4.6. Implementation & Engagement Magnitude The sixth category of the framework examines how HEIs implement SDGs-related community engagement activities, the magnitude or extent of engagements among stakeholders or actors, and the degree to which local resources are mobilized. Regarding implementation approaches, these are classified as top-down, bottom-up, or mixed (Smith & Larimer, 2018 ). Top-down approaches are characterized by institutional leadership initiating and directing the implementation of SDG-related community engagement activities, while bottom-up approaches are rooted in grassroots initiatives. Our literature review reveals that HEIs employ a range of strategies, from top-down strategies, where HEIs lead initiatives in partnership with local governments, NGOs, nonprofits, industry, and community groups (Avelar et al., 2023 ; Tong, 2022 ), to bottom-up approaches driven by grassroots actors, such as students and community members (Lee et al., 2023 ). As with other categories in our proposed framework, these authors' implementation approaches often overlap in practice, forming a continuum. To assess engagement magnitude, we drew on the framework developed by Hakkarainen et al. ( 2022 ), which explores variants of co-productions of knowledge. We distinguished four levels of engagement (see Table 2 ) within two overarching modes: one-way or collaborative betterment (Himmelman, 2001 ), where external actors receive knowledge or solutions from the university; and two-way engagement, or collaborative empowerment (Himmelman, 2001 ), where non-university actors participate as co-researchers, implementers, designers, and owners of sustainability solutions. These four variants of engagement (or co-production of knowledge) align with Hazelkorn ( 2016 ), Himmelman ( 2001 ), and Benneworth ( 2013 ), who categorize university engagement levels based on complexity and intensity, ideally leading to changing the university at its core (i.e., transformative). While numerous examples illustrate collaborative betterment (Fischer et al., 2021 ; Lockmun-Bissessur et al., 2023 ; Podgórska & Zdonek, 2024 ), instances of collaborative empowerment remain comparatively rare (Chang & Kua, 2021). 4.7. Role of HEIs in SDGs-related community engagement activities The final category of the framework focuses on the roles that HEIs assume in SDGs-related community engagement, particularly in relation to other actors within the polycentric ecosystem of local SDG implementation. Drawing on the work of Trencher et al. ( 2013 ) and Francis et al. ( 2021 ), we identified eight roles that HEIs can adopt in implementing SDG-related community engagement activities. Our literature review found evidence to support such roles of HEIs. First, the inventor or innovator role involves creating and spreading cutting-edge technologies and innovative ideas (Verdejo et al., 2022 ) through collaborations and engagement focused on hard (e.g., technology R&D) and soft dimensions (e.g., policies or social entrepreneurialism). The revitalizers or retrofitters emphasize working with external developers and authorities to upgrade current structures and the local socio-economic framework (Chang & Kua, 2021). Likewise, the builder or developer role centers on initiating new infrastructure projects, where universities invest in residential areas, commercial buildings, business districts, and green technology zones (Pacagnella Júnior et al., 2015 ). In the director or linker role, university actors envision future scenarios and seek partnerships to mobilize resources and expertise (Rosique Rodríguez et al., 2024 ). In the scientific advisor or communicator role, university actors influence local governance by sharing pilot project findings and advising on strategic actions (Croese & Duminy, 2023 ). In the facilitator or empowerer role, universities empower local stakeholders for self-directed community improvements (Chang & Kua, 2021). Lastly, the network connectors integrate strategic partners to enhance collective expertise (Croese & Duminy, 2023 ), while the neutral conveners act as impartial facilitators in multi-stakeholder engagements (Francis et al., 2021 ). 5. Comparative case studies: Microanalysis The analytical framework proposed above is used to guide the comparative case study analysis in this section. The three case studies are summarized according to the criteria from Table 2 , as shown in Table 4 below. The chosen case studies are not flawless representations but rather relatively suitable ones since the dual realities faced by higher education institutions (HEIs) as we mentioned before. In some regions, community engagement is legally mandated, whereas in others, HEIs operate under missions shaped primarily by regulatory norms. Moreover, their activities are often driven by priorities such as reaching high international rankings and securing research funding through global collaborations. The case studies were selected based on criteria outlined in Section 3.2 to ensure a relatively representative sample from each region, recognizing that these cases do not fully capture the diversity and complexity of HEIs as a whole. Understanding the mechanisms that drive HEIs’ behaviors necessitates further research, which falls outside the scope of this study. Furthermore, given the conceptual nature of the framework, the case studies serve primarily to illustrate its application; evaluating and measuring these initiatives is not within the study's focus. It is also important to note that SDG-related outreach activities encompass both successful and unsuccessful cases and may even contain elements of both within a single case, often due to structural resistance from political actors, as seen in the cases of Brazilian HEIs (Ramiro, 2024 ). In each case study, the authors aim to present both the successes and challenges of SDG-related community engagement activities. Table 4 Summary of three case studies based on the seven-level framework. Source: Authors’ elaboration. Description Case 1 National Taiwan University (NTU) Case 2 University of São Paulo (USP) Case 3 University of Manchester (UM) Sample Project Pinglin NTU project Supera Innovation and Technology Park of Ribeirão Preto Manchester Science Park/Oxford Road Corridor Mode Volunteerism and student-led activities, service learning & social service, public engagement, living labs, technology transfer, and expert consulting. Living labs, service provision & infrastructure sharing, technology transfer, expert consulting. Service-learning; living labs; service provision & infrastructure sharing; technology transfer; expert consulting. Description Located in Pinglin District, a rural district of southeastern New Taipei, Taiwan. Aim to preserve and innovate the local knowledge of tea farming and the Xiang-bao folk songs; improve educational opportunities for tea farmers' children and collaborate with experienced farmers to study climate change impacts on tea cultivation, experimenting with new farming methods. Located entirely on the land of USP, in the city of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo State, Brazil. Aims to catalyze the scientific and technological development in the region. Situated adjacent to the UM, Manchester Metropolitan University, and a large hospital. Aims to enhance Manchester's knowledge economy for a more digital and sustainable future. Actors Professors and students, tea farmers and residents, local children, local churches and schools Rector, Pro-rector of Research, faculty, staff, and students; Federal-state and city authorities, private investors. HEI Architecture; Students and faculty; Public authorities; Private investors. SDG Intensity Comprehensive SDG 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,15,17; Environmental, economic & social. 9 years. Outcome: Local tea production development, after-school clubs, cultural conservation, community-based curriculum, and knowledge co-creation. Comprehensive SDG 8, 9, 11,17; Environmental & social. Started in 2005. Outcome: Buildings of the business incubator and the Centre for Development and Applied Innovation (CEDINA) with different companies to be installed and to begin their operations. Comprehensive SDG 4, 8, 9, 11, 17; Environmental & economic. 10 years. Outcome: Office and lab space, business support for start-ups, as well as infrastructure and services for organizations in life sciences, MedTech, digital tech, advanced materials, and cybersecurity. Motivation Funding, Scientific, Community relations, Developmental, Entrepreneurial. Missional, Scientific, Social contribution, Developmental. Missional, Scientific, Social contribution, Entrepreneurial. Implementation and Collaboration Mixed; Place-based critical pedagogy; Transfer of technology; Co-production of place-based knowledge. Top-down; Multi-stakeholder coordination, Equal co-production with empowered non-academic partners Top-down; Multi-stakeholder coordination; Equal co-production with empowered non-academic partners Role of HEIs Revitalizer, Developer, Scientific advisor, Empowerer, and Network connector. Innovator, Developer, Linker, Scientific advisor, Facilitator, Network connector. Innovator, Revitalizer, Builder, Director, Scientific advisor, Facilitator, Network connector. Level of implementation Local Local Local Strengths • Deep community trust and local participation. • Integrates cultural and ecological knowledge. • Interdisciplinary collaboration between humanities, science, and agriculture. • Strengthened rural education and cultural identity. • Demonstrates sustainable and ethical place-based innovation. • Strong infrastructure and university–industry partnerships. • Contributes to regional economic growth and startup development. • Supported by state innovation agencies (INOVA). • Expands USP’s national innovation capacity. • Provides incubator space for emerging tech sectors. • Globally networked innovation corridor. • Effective university–industry–public collaboration. • Strong focus on sustainable urban and digital transformation. • Long-term strategic vision aligning with city development. • Generates knowledge-based employment and high-value startups. Weaknesses • Limited scalability beyond local context. • Dependence on volunteer labor and university funding. • Fragile economic model (non-commercialized outputs). • Difficulty measuring impact across SDGs. • Challenges sustaining long-term engagement post-project. • Internal governance conflicts (university vs. government control). • Bureaucratic delays and funding instability. • Uneven faculty engagement and internal competition. • Weak community integration (top-down model). • Overemphasis on commercialization over academic mission. • Risk of gentrification and social exclusion around innovation zone. • Market-driven pressures may overshadow community benefit. • High dependence on external investment. • Uneven benefit distribution across disciplines. • Complex governance across multiple institutions. 5.1. National Taiwan University (Taiwan) National Taiwan University (NTU) is ranked 94th in the QS Sustainability Rankings 2024 and is the second highest-ranked university from the Global South. Among a wide range of SDGs-related projects, the case study of the NTU Pinglin project provides a compelling example of how HEIs can effectively contribute to rural sustainability and advance the localization of the SDGs. Spanning from 2011 to 2019, the Pinglin NTU project addressed the critical issue of youth emigration and talent drain in rural areas, which had exacerbated unsustainable and unequal regional development patterns. Through a multidisciplinary approach grounded in place-based critical pedagogy, the project integrated various modes of community engagement to foster balanced rural sustainability, especially in disadvantaged communities in Pinglin (Taiwan). The modes were implemented include (1) Volunteerism and student-led activities (e.g., volunteer tutors, after-school clubs), (2) Service Learning & Social Service (e.g., after-school service-learning classes, home tutoring, church-supported programs), (3) Public Engagement (e.g., performances for primary and middle school students, awareness-raising on Xiang-bao folk song in puppet shows or Taiwanese operas), (4) Living Labs (e.g., social-enterprise businesses promoting eco-friendly tea farming or start-up tea companies), (5) Technology Transfer (e.g., tea-making technology), and (6) Expert Consulting (e.g., aiding Pinglin’s rural revitalization). This initiative engaged hundreds of professors and students, tea farmers and residents, local churches and schools, establishing socio-cultural and economic networks for knowledge exchange and communities of practice between rural communities and metropolitan colleges. Aligned with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and particularly SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), the Pinglin project exemplified synergies among these goals through collaborative, interdisciplinary actions. Key to its success was the stakeholders' motivations, driven by personal interests and mutual benefits, which facilitated the creation of social spaces in Pinglin (Chang & Kuo, 2021 ). This collaborative effort absorbed local knowledge and wisdom, guiding relationship-oriented actions aimed at supporting community development. Moreover, with a mixed implementation approach, the project in Pinglin was implemented with the support of National Taiwan University through its place-based critical pedagogy, intertwined with bottom-up initiatives such as Xinya (which means “new buds”) club, and New Bug club. The project engaged dedicated instructors, villagers, and local institutions, leading to transformative changes in local tea production inspired by two new NTU tea brands, the establishment of youth after-school clubs, and the integration of Xiang-bao folk music into school curricula. Engagements between young scientists and farmers in climate studies enhanced the project's impact. NTU's approach promoted socially responsible teaching, empowering instructors to choose community-focused subjects and locations, with effective teaching teams guiding new instructors. Early and consistent stakeholder involvement fostered inclusive collaboration and knowledge co-creation. Through hands-on fieldwork, students gained interdisciplinary knowledge and practical skills, contributing to community-driven research and exploring career paths. The project's focus on preserving and re-imagining tacit knowledge and intangible heritage emphasized its commitment to rural sustainability. This case serves as an example of how initial failure in supporting local tea farmers revealed vulnerabilities within the fair-trade system, ultimately prompting a shift toward a more sustainable and community-driven approach. In 2013, the research team failed to assist tea farmers in selling Baozhong tea to a national dealer, as the deal fell through due to rising costs that disproportionately affected small-scale, high-altitude farmers, who lacked bargaining power, faced unstable market prices, and struggled to meet the ecological and certification requirements of conventional fair-trade mechanisms. In response, NTU implemented an integrated social innovation model that combined academic research, community-based development, and environmental sustainability (Chang, 2013 ). The university first established a localized eco-certification system aligned with Pinglin’s watershed conservation objectives. This initiative yielded notable outcomes: within two years, average farmer incomes increased by approximately 18%, while the use of chemical inputs declined by 40%, resulting in measurable improvements in watershed water quality. Building on these achievements, NTU facilitated the creation of a legally registered enterprise to market tea products directly, supported by university students who contributed through social media promotion (Chang et al., 2016 ). Such a prompt shows the role of HEIs as revitalizers and empowerers, along with their motivation, partnerships, and entrepreneurial spirit to revitalize the local economy. Despite challenges, the HEI initiative fostered resilience among young farmers, who reclaimed their heritage and developed a sense of ownership over their craft, highlighting the importance of adaptability and community collaboration in addressing market vulnerabilities. Applying the seven-level framework (see Case 1 in Table 4 ) to the case study of NTU provides a clearer view of NTU's co-creation activities with the Pinglin community. NTU's Pinglin project illustrates how HEIs can significantly advance rural sustainability through collaborative, interdisciplinary approaches, contributing to the achievement of SDGs and fostering inclusive, sustainable development. 5.2. University of São Paulo (Brazil) Another example from the Global South is the case of the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil, which holds the 67th position in the QS Sustainability Rankings 2024 and is the top-ranked university in the Global South. Similar to NTU, USP has implemented various SDG-related projects. USP's case study highlights how HEIs can foster a sustainability culture and develop SDGs through tailored administrative structures. Ecological reserves at USP focus on SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land), showcasing their commitment to environmental conservation. These reserves protect native vegetation on USP campuses, preserve local and regional biodiversity, and serve functions such as conservation, education, research, and community engagement, emphasizing the university's role in local and global environmental efforts (De A. Romero & Kronka Mülfarth, 2017). The Supera Innovation and Technology Park of Ribeirão Preto (in short “the Ribeirão Preto Science Park”) illustrates a sustainability-focused partnership between USP, the Municipality of Ribeirão Preto, the State of São Paulo's Department of Economic Development, Science, Technology, and Innovation, and the Advanced Pole Institute of Health Foundation (FIPASE), with support from other private and public organizations. This engagement fostered research, development, and innovation in biotechnology and bioenergy within local production systems (Pacagnella Júnior et al., 2015 ). Such Science Park, functioning as living laboratories, aims to commercialize academic research outcomes, broadening financial resource avenues and expanding job opportunities for researchers and students. The Science Park, located on USP land next to its campus, aims to foster synergy between the university, government, and businesses for research, development, and innovation. By hosting corporate R&D units and production systems, it seeks to boost regional scientific and technological development, primarily attracting technology-intensive companies in biotechnology, information technology, and bioenergy, while welcoming other fields as well. Based on the seven-level framework proposed, the authors identified these modes implemented by USP in promoting the Science Park: living labs, service provision & infrastructure sharing, technology transfer, and expert consulting. These initiatives involve multiple stakeholders with diverse interests and levels of influence: FIPASE aims to develop the region; USP focuses on fostering technology transfer and spin-offs; the Municipality of Ribeirão Preto seeks job creation and tax revenue; the State of São Paulo's Department of Economic Development, Science, Technology, and Innovation aims to establish a network of technology parks; the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation aims to promote technological innovation nationwide; and private investors initially pursued real estate development and investment returns, although they withdrew midway through the planning. Furthermore, the development of the Science Park engages various university stakeholders, including rectors, the pro-rector of research, faculty, students, and staff involved in research, outreach, funding, planning, and administration. This organizational involvement shapes the development and implementation of sustainability initiatives at USP. The active participation of faculty and staff in decision-making fosters ownership and engagement in sustainability efforts, potentially enhancing their integration and success. Although the case study does not document explicit implementation failures, it highlights the critical role of stakeholder management practices in ensuring the success of science park initiatives. Effective stakeholder engagement is essential, as divergent interests among key actors can generate significant tensions. The implementation of the Science Park initiative revealed several such conflicts. Faculty and researchers, for instance, expressed concern that the park’s strong emphasis on commercialization and start-up incubation compromised the academic mission of USP, traditionally focused on public knowledge and non-proprietary research. Disputes over intellectual property (IP) rights arose when corporate partners demanded exclusive rights to inventions produced with university resources (Chais et al, 2018 ; Pacagnella Júnior et al., 2015 ). Concurrently, local communities (especially in Butantã, São Paulo) resisted construction due to environmental and traffic concerns. Environmental NGOs accused the university of deforestation and inadequate public consultation, which led USP to revise its environmental impact plan, delaying the second expansion phase (Chais et al, 2018 ; Pacagnella Júnior et al., 2015 ). In this context, small and medium-sized enterprises with an innovative-oriented culture have served as primary drivers of the science park’s technological ecosystem. Higher education institutions (HEIs) in the region function as scientific advisors, facilitators, and innovators, thereby playing a pivotal role in supporting the success of community engagement and knowledge-transfer initiatives. Using the seven-level framework (see Case 2 in Table 4 ) to analyze the USP case study offers insight into USP's collaborative activities with federal, state, and city agencies in designing and executing the Science Park. This case study illustrates how HEIs can support SDGs through outreach and partnerships. The administrative structures of HEIs significantly influence these initiatives, with motivated and engaged faculty and staff playing a crucial role in achieving success. 5.3. The University of Manchester (The UK) The University of Manchester (UM), the only one from Global North among three case studies, is ranked 3rd in the QS Sustainability Rankings 2024 and is a leading institution from the Global North in implementing SDGs through innovative projects and public-private partnerships. A key example is the Manchester Science Park, a commercial mixed-use development project situated adjacent to the UM, Manchester Metropolitan University, and a large hospital. Funded and delivered by Manchester Science Partnerships, it involves stakeholders such as Bruntwood SciTech, Manchester City Council, UM, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Cheshire East Council, and Salford City Council. The park offers office and lab space, and business support for start-ups, as well as infrastructure and services for organizations in life sciences, medtech, digital tech, advanced materials, and cybersecurity. Such a living laboratory has adopted the Urban Living Labs (ULLs) concept to promote education for sustainable development. Like those at MIT, UM's ULLs turn the academic environment into hands-on learning spaces focused on sustainability. Moreover, the partnership's website highlights investments in urban development within the digital sector, aimed at boosting Manchester's knowledge economy for a digital and greener future (Ng et al., 2022 ). The Manchester Science Park is part of the Oxford Road Corridor, a high-intensity co-creation area in Manchester’s central business and education district. This district includes Manchester's hospitals, universities, and the Manchester Science Park, functioning as a "living lab" focused on scientific knowledge production and flexible governance to address emerging life challenges. The 2012 Manchester Local Plan acknowledged the economic benefits of commercializing education and healthcare activities, combined with private sector investment in science and technology, for the Greater Manchester economy. This project exemplifies a successful public-private partnership led by Manchester City Council and UM (Ng et al., 2022 ). The Manchester Science Park, guided by the seven-level framework, implements modes such as service-learning, living labs, service provision and infrastructure sharing, technology transfer, and expert consulting. Local authorities, particularly the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and its ten districts, play a vital role in producing, managing, and utilizing digital data. Unlike the critical view of global smart city initiatives that often see public organizations as "powerless," GMCA actively shapes the digital ecosystem in Greater Manchester. This proactive approach stems from a history of collaboration and engagement among public, private, and third sectors, leading to the formation of the Manchester Science Park (Ng et al., 2022 ). One challenge faced by the University of Manchester and Greater Manchester in implementing SDG-related community engagement activities is understanding the impact of digital technologies and their interaction with spatial planning on sustainable development. This raises concerns about social equity, particularly as the project has struggled to translate economic growth into improved prosperity for many residents and communities, with nearly half of Manchester's neighborhoods falling into England's most deprived decile. This poses a critical question for HEIs aiming to promote digital sectors and economic development projects. Additionally, limited access to proprietary data from private companies like Google complicates stakeholder partnerships during project implementation. If HEIs fail to address these questions, it could ultimately endanger the long-term success of their SDG-related outreach activities. In conclusion, UM demonstrates SDG implementation through strategic public-private partnerships (SDG 17), innovative urban development (SDG 11), transformative education (SDG 4), economic growth (SDG 8), and innovation and infrastructure development (SDG 9). Through experiential learning, the University of Manchester not only contributes to sustainable development but also equips students with essential skills to tackle future challenges effectively (see Case 3 in Table 4 ). The three case studies illustrate a comprehensive approach to community engagement and SDG implementation, each reflecting unique geographic and contextual influences. NTU in Taiwan (Global South) addresses SDGs 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 17 through initiatives like local tea production, after-school clubs, cultural conservation, community-based curricula, and knowledge co-creation, encompassing environmental, economic, and social dimensions over nine years. Similarly, USP in Brazil (Global South) has focused on SDGs 8, 9, 11, and 17 since 2005, achieving notable outcomes through its business incubator and the Centre for Development and Applied Innovation (CEDINA), which foster partnerships with various companies for environmental and social benefits. In contrast, UM in the UK (Global North) has emphasized SDGs 4, 8, 9, 11, and 17 over a decade, focusing on infrastructure for office and lab space and business support for startups, primarily addressing economic and environmental sustainability. It is noteworthy that NTU in Taiwan (Global South) emphasizes all three aspects of sustainability—environmental, economic, and social—while the cases from the Global North, such as UM in the UK, primarily focus on economic and environmental dimensions, with less emphasis on social aspects that can lead to social equity questions. Despite these differences, all three institutions incorporate environmental elements into their community engagement efforts, reflecting a shared commitment to addressing sustainability challenges in their respective contexts. Overall, while each institution employs a comprehensive strategy tailored to its context, its varied outcomes reflect the diverse pathways to achieving sustainable development goals across different regions. 6. Discussion Although the sample was limited through literature review and comparative case study analysis to form and complement the analytical framework and the findings in Tables 2 and 3 , the study still uncovered some remarkable observations. These insights stem from case studies, which provide complementary examples, and from the literature review, which serve as the primary foundation for the results and discussion presented below. Role of partnership The seven-level framework highlights the core role of collaboration, cooperation, and partnerships (i.e., SDG 17) in promoting community engagement among diverse actors, including HEIs, within a polycentric ecosystem for implementing SDGs-related activities. In the multidimensional, multi-stakeholder context of SDGs (Suárez-Serrano et al., 2023 ), HEIs are no longer seen as ivory towers but are increasingly positioning themselves as key players with significant authority in co-creating transformative changes. Furthermore, the literature reveals that the cross-sector engagements are sometimes not initiated by HEIs but by other stakeholders such as state or local governments aiming to develop urban sustainability (Trencher et al., 2013 ), which complements our proposed framework related to different roles of HEIs during this process, both innovators/builders and followers/linkers/network connectors (see Table 2 ). Actors and Motivation As they reframe their roles, HEIs must seek resources to finance sustainable development. Resources can be secured through intra-organizational and inter-organizational collaborations and engagements. This involves seeking partnerships both within HEIs (among colleges, departments, faculty members, and student organizations) and beyond their boundaries. External partnerships may include local governments (providing legal and financial support), the business sector (offering technology or funding opportunities), local communities, NGOs/NPOs, and occasionally interest groups. Our case studies revealed the formation of various partnerships among these identifiable actors. Notably, the role of HEIs during this process is not only in a positive signal but also in a negative way. Sometimes, HEIs are primarily driven by practical concerns (e.g., funding, ranking) rather than scientific ones and often originate from university administration or intermediary organizations like sustainability or community outreach offices (Wiewel & Perry, 2015 ). While HEIs’ motivations, such as enhancing rankings, attracting funding, or fulfilling legal mandates, can drive engagement, overemphasis on these incentives may risk prioritizing institutional gain over meaningful community impact. These motivations can influence the long-term sustainability of projects, as initiatives grounded primarily in external incentives may fade once funding or performance pressures change, whereas projects driven by genuine community needs and strong partnerships are more likely to endure. SDG intensity A unique aspect of the framework is its emphasis on SDG intensity. We found that HEIs worldwide are implementing their engagement activities more comprehensively, addressing multiple SDGs simultaneously, rather than focusing on one or two in isolation. Additionally, HEIs are addressing all three pillars of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) rather than concentrating on a single aspect. They are increasingly focusing on disadvantaged communities to create more sustainable cities and communities (SDGs 10 and 11). This approach complements existing literature on the interlinkages of SDGs (Pyakurel & Marasini, 2021 ) and the impact of HEIs' pro-environmental actions on urban sustainability, particularly in reducing inequalities and fostering a more sustainable society (Vien & Galik, 2024 ). Implementation and Policy Impact HEIs' SDG-related community engagement activities range from their SDG top-down implementation—prominently promoting university-led SDG initiatives in partnerships with communities, local governments, NGOs, nonprofit organizations, and industry (Avelar et al., 2023 ; Tong, 2022 )—to the SDG bottom-up implementation, chiefly relying on student-led or community-led initiatives to deliver individual SDG initiatives (Brugmann et al., 2019 ; Lee et al., 2023 ). Our analysis of case studies revealed that two out of three cases employed top-down approaches, while one used a mixed approach for implementing SDG-related community engagement activities. More data is needed to determine which method is more prevalent and effective. The implementation process also suggests both successful and failed aspects when implementing SDGs. Regardless of the approach, it is evident that such implementation influences current and future policy design and execution. The increased participation of HEIs in SDG implementation is expected to trigger a positive feedback loop. In this loop, policies and initiatives from various stakeholders will mutually reinforce each other, thereby raising climate action. The proactive efforts of HEIs concerning the SDGs will inspire policymakers to enact more ambitious policies, which in turn will encourage greater participation of HEIs in the SDGs, creating a continuous cycle of enhanced engagement and impact. Generalization We have identified ten modes of implementation across various categories through literature review, including volunteerism and student-led activities; service learning / social service; adult education and lifelong learning; public engagement; public debate/facilitator; advocacy-policy; living labs; service provision/infrastructure sharing; technology transfer; and expert consulting (knowledge transfer) (see Table 3 ). Through an extensive review of case studies and literature, we found that numerous leading universities globally—spanning Europe, the Americas, Asia, Oceania, and Africa—have undertaken SDG-related community engagement activities. This indicates that the new mission of co-creating sustainability is becoming relatively widespread among HEIs. Future development The framework holds promise for future advancement. While we have identified 10 modes of engagement and categorized them within a seven-level framework, we acknowledge that there may be additional modes that we did not capture due to the limitations of our sample pool. Furthermore, much of the literature we reviewed dates from 2015 to early 2025, suggesting ongoing initiatives and continual evolution in HEIs' practices, characteristics, and categories. 7. Conclusion This study is one of the first to examine literature reviews and case studies about HEIs' community engagement initiatives related to the SDGs. By identifying commonalities and differences across HEIs’ community engagement activities, the authors have developed a seven-category framework that can be generalized to HEIs worldwide. This framework serves as a structured and versatile tool for assessing HEIs’ SDG-related community engagement activities and addresses seven key questions: (1) What modes of SDG-related community engagement are employed by HEIs? (2) How are these modes defined? (3) Who are the primary actors involved? (4) Do these modes target specific SDGs, and what is the intensity of engagement? (5) What motivates HEIs to engage with their communities? (6) How are these activities implemented—are they driven by top-down directives, grassroots initiatives, or a combination of both? (7) What roles do HEIs play throughout the engagement process? Such questions are answered and supported by literature review and case studies (see Tables 2 and 3 ), highlighting the role of partnerships, actors, and their motivation, SDG intensity, implementation, policy impact, generalization, and future development. The three case studies, represented by both Global North and Global South, have revealed that HEIs’ outreach efforts in SDG implementation are a global phenomenon. The nature of SDGs is voluntary; however, there is a wide range of SDGs-related community engagement activities initiated by HEIs worldwide, showing the trend among HEIs worldwide in moving toward the third and fourth missions of community engagement and co-producing for sustainability. Among the key similarities are: 1) a trend of opening up universities to diverse societal actors; 2) the redirection of universities towards solving social and environmental (i.e., sustainability) challenges facing humanity; 3) the need for multi-actor engagements to solve those challenges; and 4) the hope that this increased engagement with societal actors to support sustainability transformations will permeate all areas of universities, thus transforming them. To advance these efforts, HEIs can better integrate bottom-up initiatives with top-down strategies through participatory governance that include students, communities, and other stakeholders. Such integration helps ensure that institutional actions remain globally aligned yet locally relevant. To ensure the long-term sustainability of these initiatives, building trust with community partners, securing stable resources, institutionalizing engagement practices, and fostering ongoing communication and shared ownership are key mechanisms. Concerning the limitations of this study, we concentrated on HEIs' community engagement initiatives related to the SDGs through literature reviews and case studies, without incorporating interviews or surveys, due to the short time frame allocated for this paper. This may indicate a lack of empirical data, underscoring the need for further research in this field and highlighting the importance of sharing experiences and best practices across academia, industry, government, and communities. Such empirical studies could offer a more complete picture of the personal experiences, perceived effectiveness, and feasibility of community-led SDG initiatives, offering testimonial best practices for future projects. Besides, we recognize that selecting these cases cannot fully capture or represent the entire landscape of university activities related to SDG localization within a region or country, especially given the diversity in university organization, goals, and implementation strategies, such as the varied contexts of Brazilian universities implementing the SDGs (Galvão & De Menezes, 2024 ). Additionally, the motivations behind universities’ efforts to localize SDGs fall outside the scope of this study, so factors such as legal mandates, normative influences, or aspirations for higher rankings and research funding are not considered here. Areas for further research could include a deeper examination of the modes of engagement and collaborative networks for sustainability co-creation among HEIs, considering how different stakeholders' varying levels of power and interest (Olander & Landin, 2005 ) impact SDG implementation. Additionally, exploring the perspective of other actors (e.g., local governments, local businesses, or communities) on SDG localization, where HEIs play a supporting role, would be insightful. Future studies of this kind could employ qualitative empirical methods (e.g., surveys or interviews) to address this paper’s limitation regarding primary data. Such approaches could offer a more comprehensive understanding of personal experiences, perceived effectiveness, and the feasibility of community-led SDG initiatives, as well as document testimonial best practices to inform future projects and enrich the literature on community-led SDG projects. Moreover, investigating the mechanisms behind decisions to incorporate SDGs into HEIs’ activities can shed light on the practical realities of SDG localization. Empirical studies that apply this seven-category framework would also be valuable. Especially, research that validates the framework by demonstrating its applicability in HEIs from other regions, particularly in underrepresented areas beyond the cases examined in this study, can strengthen the global relevance of the findings on community engagement and SDG integration of HEIs worldwide. References Agusdinata, D. B. (2022). The role of universities in SDGs solution co-creation and implementation: A human-centered design and shared-action learning process. Sustainability Science , 17 (4), 1589–1604. Aleixo, A. M., Azeiteiro, U. M., & Leal, S. (2020). Are the sustainable development goals being implemented in the Portuguese higher education formative offer? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 21 (2), 336–352. Almansour, M. (2024). Business Incubators and Entrepreneurial Training: Leveraging Technological Innovations and Digital Marketing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3180212 Avelar, A. B. A., da Silva Oliveira, K. D., & Farina, M. C. (2023). The integration of the Sustainable Development Goals into curricula, research and partnerships in higher education. International Review of Education , 69 (3), 299–325. Benneworth, P. (Ed.). (2013). University engagement with socially excluded communities . Springer Verlag. Bexell, M., Bornemann, B., Moallemi, E. A., & Vien, H. B. (2025). Accelerating the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals at the local level: Unpacking governance processes and tensions. Earth System Governance , 25 , 100264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100264 Bravo, R., & Marie, R. (1992). Hacia una difusión cultural universitaria . Bridges, A., & Guo, D. (2024). Aligning stakeholder goals: Implications for inclusive urban sustainability. Environmental Development , 52 , 101082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101082 Brugmann, R., Côté, N., Postma, N., Shaw, E. A., Pal, D., & Robinson, J. B. (2019). Expanding student engagement in sustainability: Using SDG-and CEL-focused inventories to transform curriculum at the University of Toronto. Sustainability , 11 (2), 530. Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., Dripps, W., Habron, G., Harré, N., Jarchow, M., Losch, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R., Walker, P., & Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—Toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science , 16 (1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2 Cabral, R., & Galvão, T. G. (2022). Reimagining the UN 2030 agenda by connecting the sdg to culture, art and communication. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias de La Comunicación , 21 (41), 44–59. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). “Mode 3’and’Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management , 46 (3–4), 201–234. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD-CERI]. (1982). The University and the Community: The Problems of Changing Relationships . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Washington, DC. Chais, C., Patrícia Ganzer, P., & Munhoz Olea, P. (2018). Technology transfer between universities and companies: Two cases of Brazilian universities. Innovation & Management Review , 15 (1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-02-2018-002 Chang, S. E. (2013). Blue Magpie TEAgriculture: Eco-tea Cultivation and Participatory Farming in Pinglin Satoyama, Taiwan. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 101 , 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.174 Chang, S. E., & Kuo, M.-Y. (2021). A place-based pedagogical action study to enrich rural sustainability: Knowledge ties of national Taiwan university’s 10-year partnership with Pinglin. Sustainability , 13 (5), 2916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052916 Chang, S. E., Yang, Z., Duo, M., & Hsiao, T. (2016). Participatory agricultural humanities for the new ruralism tea-community revitalization in Taiwan. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal , 1 (3), 251–256. Chankseliani, M., & McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. Higher Education , 81 (1), 1–8. Chaves-Chaparro, J., Aguirre-Bastos, C., & Domínguez-Gómez, J. A. (2025). The sustainability science approach in sub-Saharan Africa: Key lessons from five case studies. Sustainability Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01616-0 Clement, J., Ruysschaert, B., & Crutzen, N. (2023). Smart city strategies – A driver for the localization of the sustainable development goals? Ecological Economics , 213 , 107941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107941 Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 161 , 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284 Croese, S., & Duminy, J. (2023). Co-producing urban expertise for SDG localization: The history and practices of urban knowledge production in South Africa. Urban Geography , 44 (3), 538–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2022.2079868 Cuesta-Claros, A., Malekpour, S., Raven, R., & Kestin, T. (2023). Are the sustainable development goals transforming universities? – An analysis of steering effects and depth of change. Earth System Governance , 17 , 100186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186 De A. Romero, M., & Kronka Mülfarth, R. C. (2017). University of São Paulo: Sustainability masterplan for policies, plans, goals and actions. Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Volume 4 , 509–530. De Negreiros, D. F., & Dos Santos, E. G. (2024). Ten Years of the Implementation of Affirmative Action Law for Black Students in Higher Education Institutions: Challenges and Strategies Related to the SDG. In T. G. Galvao & H. Z. De Menezes (Eds.), The Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 283–295). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9_20 Dunn, W. N. (2015). Public policy analysis: An integrated approach . Routledge. Eichberg, E. T. A. M., & Charles, A. (2024). The Role of the Civic University in Facilitating Inclusive and Transformative Pedagogical Approaches to the Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability , 16 (7), 2752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072752 ElMassah, S., & Mohieldin, M. (2020). Digital transformation and localizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ecological Economics , 169 , 106490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106490 Elton, L. (2008). Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt’s relevance to British Universities today. Higher Education Quarterly , 62 (3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00388.x Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review , 14 (1), 14–19. Fia, M., Ghasemzadeh, K., & Paletta, A. (2023). How higher education institutions walk their talk on the 2030 Agenda: A systematic literature review. Higher Education Policy , 36 (3), 599–632. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-022-00277-x Fischer, B., Guerrero, M., Guimón, J., & Schaeffer, P. R. (2021). Knowledge transfer for frugal innovation: Where do entrepreneurial universities stand? Journal of Knowledge Management , 25 (2), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2020-0040 Francis, J. N. P., Henriksson, K., & Stewart Alonso, J. (2021). Collaborating for transformation: Applying the Co-Laboratorio approach to bridge research, pedagogy and practice. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement , 42 (3), 416–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1797650 Freire, P. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Toward a sociology of education (pp. 374–386). Routledge. Führ, R. (2025). Localization. In Essential Concepts for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: An AZ Guide (pp. 84–85). Routledge. Galvão, T. G., & De Menezes, H. Z. (Eds.). (2024). The Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals: Living experiences in territorializing the 2030 Agenda in Brazil . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9 Galvão, T. G., & Green, C. (2025). Education for Sustainable Development. In Essential Concepts for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: An AZ Guide (pp. 39–40). Routledge. Galvão, T. G., Lima, M. G. B., & Ramiro, R. (2023). Bottom-up regionality and the Sustainable Development Goals: Civil society organizations shaping 2030 Agenda implementation in Latin America. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional , 66 (2), e021. Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., & Vallance, P. (Eds.). (2016). The Civic University: The policy and leadership challenges . Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717728 Goyeneche, O. Y. R., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Arroyave, F. (2022). Mobilizing the transformative power of research for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Research Policy , 51 (10), 104589. Gunasekara, C. (2006). The generative and developmental roles of universities in regional innovation systems. Science and Public Policy , 33 (2), 137–150. Hakkarainen, V., Mäkinen‐Rostedt, K., Horcea‐Milcu, A., D’Amato, D., Jämsä, J., & Soini, K. (2022). Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: Towards an integrative and transformative use of co‐concepts. Sustainable Development , 30 (2), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2276 Haskins, C. H. (1927). The renaissance of the twelfth century . Harvard University Press. Hazelkorn, E. (2016). Contemporary debates part 2: Initiatives, governance and organisational structures. In The Civic University (pp. 65–93). Edward Elgar Publishing. Himmelman, A. T. (2001). On coalitions and the transformation of power relations: Collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology , 29 (2). Hirsu, L., Quezada-Reyes, Z., & Hashemi, L. (2021). Moving SDG5 forward: Women’s public engagement activities in higher education. Higher Education , 81 (1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00597-0 Kelly, O., White, P., Butera, F., Illingworth, S., Martens, P., Huynen, M., Bailey, S., Schuitema, G., & Cowman, S. (2023). A transdisciplinary model for teaching and learning for sustainability science in a rapidly warming world. Sustainability Science , 18 (6), 2707–2722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01407-z Klein, J. T. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity . Springer Science & Business Media. Lee, B., Liu, K., Warnock, T. S., Kim, M. O., & Skett, S. (2023). Students leading students: A qualitative study exploring a student-led model for engagement with the sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 24 (3), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2022-0037 Lepore, W., Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: A decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d’études Du Développement , 42 (3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887 Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). Triple Helix of innovation: Introduction. Science and Public Policy , 25 (6), 358–364. Lockmun-Bissessur, V. N., Samy, M., & Peeroo, S. (2023). Contribution to the Implementation of SDG 4: The Case of Université des Mascareignes, Mauritius. In D. Crowther & S. Seifi (Eds.), Preparing for a Sustainable Future (pp. 109–130). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2456-1_6 López, I. L., Bote, M., Rives, L. M., & Bañón, A. R. (2019). Higher education institutions as a transformation platform under the sustainable development goals framework. European Journal of Sustainable Development , 8 (3), 306–306. Malekpour, S., Raven, R., Allen, C., Moallemi, E. A., Ningrum, D., Cuesta-Claros, A., Grainger-Brown, J., Trundle, A., Kestin, T., Coy, D., Dechrai, I., Walters, J., & Bryan, B. (2024). Transformative localization to accelerate the 2030 Agenda. Nature Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01324-8 Marchigiani, E., & Garofolo, I. (2023). Italian Universities for Territorial Sustainable Development and Responsible Communities—The Case Study of the University of Trieste. Sustainability , 15 (3), 2325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032325 McCowan, T. (2019). Higher education for and beyond the sustainable development goals . Springer. McCowan, T. (2023). The crosscutting impact of higher education on the Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Educational Development , 103 , 102945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102945 Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe , 33 (2–3), 259–271. Morrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., Evans, L., Cohen, P., Song, A. M., & Turner, R. (2019). The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Global Environmental Change , 57 , 101934. Moyo, I., & Cele, H. M. S. (2021). Protected areas and environmental conservation in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: On HEIs, livelihoods and sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 22 (7), 1536–1551. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2020-0157 Neary, J., & Osborne, M. (2018). University engagement in achieving sustainable development goals: A synthesis of case studies from the SUEUAA study. Australian Journal of Adult Learning , 58 (3), 336–364. Ng, M. K., Koksal, C., Wong, C., & Tang, Y. (2022). Smart and sustainable development from a spatial planning perspective: The case of Shenzhen and Greater Manchester. Sustainability , 14 (6), 3509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063509 Ningrum, D., Raven, R., Malekpour, S., Moallemi, E. A., & Bryan, B. A. (2023). Transformative potential in sustainable development goals engagement: Experience from local governance in Australia. Global Environmental Change , 80 , 102670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102670 Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management , 23 (4), 321–328. Olawumi, T. O., & Chan, D. W. (2018). A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production , 183 , 231–250. Ortiz-Moya, F., & Reggiani, M. (2023). Contributions of the voluntary local review process to policy integration: Evidence from frontrunner cities. Npj Urban Sustainability , 3 (1), 22. Pacagnella Júnior, A. C., Porto, G. S., Pacífico, O., & Salgado Júnior, A. P. (2015). Project Stakeholder Management: A Case Study of a Brazilian Science Park. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation , 10 (2), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000200004 Parr, A., Binagwaho, A., & Stirling, A. (2022). Knowledge-driven actions: Transforming higher education for global sustainability . UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/YBTV1653 Podgórska, M., & Zdonek, I. (2024). Interdisciplinary collaboration in higher education towards sustainable development. Sustainable Development , 32 (3), 2085–2103. Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., & Spengler, J. D. (2019). Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals: “Living labs” for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 20 (8), 1343–1357. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0103 Pyakurel, P., & Marasini, R. (2021). Policy planning to achieve sustainable development goals for low-income nations. Environmental Development , 40 , 100673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100673 Ramiro, R. (2024). The Brazilian National Landscape in Governing and Implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. In T. G. Galvao & H. Z. De Menezes (Eds.), The Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 3–18). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9_1 Renaud, F. G., Zhou, X., Bosher, L., Barrett, B., & Huang, S. (2022). Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals and targets: Innovative approaches and new perspectives. Sustainability Science , 17 (4), 1317–1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01209-9 Reuter, T. A. (2023). SDG localization: Finding the middle ground to top-down and bottom-up approaches with the help of digital networking. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy , 19 (1), 2207372. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2207372 Rosique Rodríguez, M. V., de-Prado Ruiz-Santaella, C., & Jordano Barbudo, M. Á. (2024). Contribution of cultural heritage resources to the 2030 agenda SDGS. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development . https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2023-0090 Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Drumm, E. (2023). Sustainable development report 2023: Implementing the SDG Stimulus . Sahle, M., Lahoti, S. A., Lee, S.-Y., Kamiyama, C., Tan, X., Kozar, R., Saito, O., & Takeuchi, K. (2024). Mapping the evolving research landscape of sustainability science from 2006 to 2023: Unveiling its transformation. Sustainability Science , 19 (5), 1735–1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01529-y Scholz, R. W. (2020). Transdisciplinarity: Science for and with society in light of the university’s roles and functions. Sustainability Science , 15 (4), 1033–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00794-x Scholz, R. W., Mieg, H. A., & Oswald, J. E. (2000). Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management—Towards mutual learning of science and society. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution , 123 , 477–487. Seidl, R., Brand, F. S., Stauffacher, M., Krütli, P., Le, Q. B., Spörri, A., Meylan, G., Moser, C., González, M. B., & Scholz, R. W. (2013). Science with society in the anthropocene. Ambio , 42 , 5–12. Serafini, P. G., Moura, J. M. D., Almeida, M. R. D., & Rezende, J. F. D. D. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production , 370 , 133473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133473 Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. (2018). The public policy theory primer . Routledge. Sovacool, B. K. (2011). An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance. Energy Policy , 39 (6), 3832–3844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.014 Stephens, J. C., Hernandez, M. E., Román, M., Graham, A. C., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 9 (3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916 Suárez-Serrano, E., González-Torre, P. L., & Covián-Regales, E. (2023). A business prioritisation of the sustainable development goals indicators: Building bridges between academics and practitioners in the Spanish case. Environmental Development , 46 , 100827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100827 Tong, V. C. (2022). Shaping sustainability priorities for higher education institutions. In A Resilience Approach to Acceleration of Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 135–152). Springer. Trencher, G., Bai, X., Evans, J., McCormick, K., & Yarime, M. (2014). University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Global Environmental Change , 28 , 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009 Trencher, G., Nagao, M., Chen, C., Ichiki, K., Sadayoshi, T., Kinai, M., Kamitani, M., Nakamura, S., Yamauchi, A., & Yarime, M. (2017). Implementing sustainability co-creation between universities and society: A typology-based understanding. Sustainability , 9 (4), 594. Trencher, G. P., Yarime, M., & Kharrazi, A. (2013). Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner Production , 50 , 40–55. Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N. H., & Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy , 41 (2), 151–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044 United Nations. (2023). Times of Crisis, Times of Change: Science for Accelerating Transformations to Sustainable Development. Global Sustainable Development Report 2023 . Verdejo, Á., Espinilla, M., López, J. L., & Melguizo, F. J. (2022). Assessment of sustainable development objectives in Smart Labs: Technology and sustainability at the service of society. Sustainable Cities and Society , 77 , 103559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103559 Vien, H. B. (2025). Institutions and institutional effects. In Essential Concepts for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: An AZ Guide (pp. 65–66). Routledge. Vien, H., & Galik, C. S. (2024). Individual and interlinked SDGs: Higher education institutions and metro area sustainability performance. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 25 (5), 962–987. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2023-0231 Wiewel, W., & Perry, D. C. (2015). Global universities and urban development: Case studies and analysis . Routledge. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6058894","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":417676973,"identity":"6ffeb131-cc53-4dff-9520-0dd7966bc4e0","order_by":0,"name":"Ha Vien","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4231-6807","institution":"North Carolina State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ha","middleName":"","lastName":"Vien","suffix":""},{"id":417677077,"identity":"2bc37c2d-63f6-4696-8700-46c132df5ba8","order_by":1,"name":"Edoardo Eichberg","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bath","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Edoardo","middleName":"","lastName":"Eichberg","suffix":""},{"id":417676974,"identity":"38616a9c-89e8-45c4-bf21-d51bbec0c1a4","order_by":2,"name":"Andrea Cuesta-Claros","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monash University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrea","middleName":"","lastName":"Cuesta-Claros","suffix":""},{"id":417677078,"identity":"cd9a4dfa-7519-45d3-8fb5-d4f25aa5e939","order_by":3,"name":"Aurelie Charles","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bath","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aurelie","middleName":"","lastName":"Charles","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-18 20:26:00","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6058894/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6058894/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99793860,"identity":"709e78e9-f844-43a2-8df0-393b5f2582d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:33:24","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3568969,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1.HEIfinalwithinfoR1noTrack.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/182c8839f4f3caf296f5876b.docx"},{"id":99622223,"identity":"98f5c8fa-5a35-429b-abbf-96d565f33490","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:24","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs6058894.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/40a3e0f77af3b783cc88b93b.json"},{"id":99622232,"identity":"a9b1633f-3863-4834-8250-a8daba6f4ba6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:24","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":243801,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs60588940enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/2217522d53b334de6c4ab3ff.xml"},{"id":99792643,"identity":"e3f9cd5a-41c7-4c97-bca0-013f78315497","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:23:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1583,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/a9106825a6fc5767d83a4c76.png"},{"id":99793201,"identity":"b959927e-f911-4351-9f0b-cd0e7056a3a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:31:10","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":185791,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/a76cbd913b7e0510a26dba6a.png"},{"id":99793826,"identity":"3c78e70b-0e95-48ba-a03f-5af26226546c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:32:30","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":167939,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/4c1f7c272876d499b93040f4.png"},{"id":99622224,"identity":"265c00fb-b2ea-4e5b-9dd8-9e6c32d8d574","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:24","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41919,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/556a803ab11e3597ebb774f0.png"},{"id":99622227,"identity":"28f98ab0-d218-40af-b13f-bd25ae0a5784","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:24","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/457f728dd0756a7baa56a441.png"},{"id":99794110,"identity":"27618b44-6e4f-491f-862f-7746306596ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:33:58","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":49372,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/94e8b36453dba2acfd3a13a4.png"},{"id":99622229,"identity":"71dfc8fd-7d71-4c6a-867d-67246eb5c9ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:24","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41125,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/825a3326649df4d72223b518.png"},{"id":99793452,"identity":"75d07089-891d-4456-ab8a-761fc2c7eb75","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:31:36","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16113,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/a26f7a919f2f3fbe1d3d216d.png"},{"id":99622234,"identity":"e38e6fb4-119f-4780-97b1-7d6e2b9a2c9d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:25","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":242636,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs60588940structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/132870fa866100c8e5c2543e.xml"},{"id":99622235,"identity":"4a21cb0d-60b2-4567-8a8f-98ed43aec7aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:25","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":252280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/344b03a072f6307f8440b9fb.html"},{"id":99794077,"identity":"a1fcfa5d-bc92-48a8-9960-2fe25f3e6ecb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:33:55","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":185791,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePolycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level. Adapted from Morrison et al. (2019)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/bded6b79be9d994704f5f01e.png"},{"id":99794795,"identity":"06a3b67b-7602-4180-baf0-f9374ccbd748","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:36:19","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":167939,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHEIs in the Polycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level. Source: Authors’ elaboration.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/0fec70c6afafc918e0699534.png"},{"id":99622221,"identity":"cbd2aac6-b590-4c57-9ebb-5002667be3b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41919,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA Flow Diagram- Identification of studies via Scopus database\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/c95309dd0e5a9ae11301b47d.png"},{"id":99804261,"identity":"81123675-e38d-485e-8bdc-57ce1d516c79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 14:12:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1904746,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/ecbf2b69-6124-44b2-a055-549a79037a56.pdf"},{"id":99622219,"identity":"0d625391-4b55-4f25-83e0-17afc9c0f7be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 14:29:24","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":43372,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6058894/v1/1efad595f318ca5c7ea3681c.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eFostering Local Sustainability: How Higher Education Institutions Advance SDGs through Community Engagement.\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe slogan \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;Think Globally but Act Locally\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; has gained renewed importance at the midpoint of SDGs implementation. Adopted in 2015, the Agenda 2030 and its 17 SDGs were envisioned as a set of global goals for sustainable development. However, mid-term assessments present a grim picture: the world is falling short of achieving any of the SDGs by their 2030 deadline (Sachs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response, scholars around the world have urged the localization of the SDGs, advocating for their implementation across various levels of society, geographic regions, and sectors (Malekpour et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sahle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these calls for SDG localization acknowledge that global initiatives are undoubtedly essential for long-term solutions, they also recognize that decentralized efforts that tailor priorities to local contexts are equally vital. Such decentralized approaches have a strong potential to address the needs of local communities while fostering responsibility and openness within the local community (ElMassah \u0026amp; Mohieldin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Among the various actors contributing to the localization of the SDGs, universities or HEIs are increasingly recognized as pivotal contributors to the attainment of SDGs (Cuesta-Claros et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Parr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe growing recognition of HEIs as key players in SDG implementation has attracted scholarly attention to how these institutions integrate the SDGs into their core missions (Chankseliani \u0026amp; McCowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Fia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Serafini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These studies include examining HEIs\u0026rsquo; first mission of teaching and learning, particularly evident in efforts to integrate the SDGs into curricula and advancing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (i.e., target 4.7) (Aleixo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Brugmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Fia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kelly et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Galv\u0026atilde;o \u0026amp; Green, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Other studies have focused on the universities\u0026rsquo; second research mission, which involves studying and advancing the SDGs through interdisciplinary and collaborative research, academic publications, and knowledge-sharing platforms (Olawumi \u0026amp; Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Goyeneche et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, scholars have also analyzed how universities engage with the SDGs through their third mission activities - broadly understood as a contribution to society, outreach activities, and community engagement (Compagnucci \u0026amp; Spigarelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; L\u0026oacute;pez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Neary \u0026amp; Osborne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Purcell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Fia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). When these third mission activities are explicitly oriented towards addressing sustainability issues, they align with an emerging \"fourth mission\" of \"co-production for sustainability\" (Trencher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea). Universities adopting this fourth mission engage with a wide array of actors to support and enable sustainability transformations (Trencher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the growing body of research on how HEIs integrate the SDGs into their missions, whether individually or in an interlinked manner (Renaud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Vien \u0026amp; Galik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), coverage remains uneven and incomplete across different missions, levels of analysis, and positions (Fia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This is evident in reviews from Fia et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Serafini et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which highlight a notable gap in scholarship on the third and fourth missions of HEIs. This gap may be attributed to the dominant perception of HEIs primarily as educational institutions focused on teaching, learning, and research, rather than actors embedded in society bearing responsibilities towards their local communities. These responsibilities may be mandated by law (De Negreiros \u0026amp; Dos Santos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), shaped by cultural norms, a result of national histories, or influenced by other drivers such as international rankings or funding for international cooperation (Vien \u0026amp; Galik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In response to this gap, this article investigates how universities engage with external communities to support the implementation and localization of the SDGs at the local level. Specifically, this study examines the key characteristics of HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement programs, including modes of SDG community engagement, SDG intensity, motivations, actors, and implementation approaches. This analysis is grounded in a review of existing literature and case studies featuring diverse HEIs from Brazil, Taiwan, and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper is structured as follows. Section 2 elaborates on the concept SDG localization and introduces polycentric governance as a concept to underscore the relevance of university-led SDG action. This section also traces the evolution of HEI\u0026rsquo;s missions, highlighting the emerging focus on co-creating sustainability solutions in collaboration with society and non-academic actors. Section 3 outlines the methodological approach, which comprises a macro-level analysis used to develop the analytical framework, and a micro-level analysis in which the framework is applied to the case study involving three distinct cases. Section 4 presents the analytical framework, while Section 5 details the findings from the case study. Finally, Sections 6 discusses the findings and Section 7 presents the conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. HEIs and SDG Engagement: Context and Concepts","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. A polycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe slow progress toward achieving the SDGs by their 2030 deadline (United Nations, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) has intensified the urgency to get them back on track. The mid-term review of the SDGs highlights the need to mobilize both state and non-state stakeholders across multiple levels of implementation. Scholars have emphasized the importance of rethinking current approaches to SDG implementation, particularly through the lens of localization (Clement et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ningrum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Reuter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSDG localization refers to the process of adapting global goals to specific contexts. This involves aligning the SDGs with local needs and priorities (Galv\u0026atilde;o et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; F\u0026uuml;hr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), embedding the goals within local rules, norms, and shared strategies (Vien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) to cultivate an SDG culture (Cabral \u0026amp; Galv\u0026atilde;o, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and executing tangible actions at the local level. The localization of the SDGs can generate tensions between global ambitions and local circumstances, between institutional stability and transformation, and between long-term objectives and short-term policy demands (Bexell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Localization encompasses all scales below the global level (e.g., national, state, local, and individual level), any geographic areas (e.g., Europe or Africa), and any actors (e.g., local governments, private sectors, or universities) (Malekpour et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For example, many cities worldwide are actively engaged in SDG implementation through Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) (Ortiz-Moya \u0026amp; Reggiani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), which, while they do not have official status, serve as valuable tools for self-assessment and reporting. Similarly, universities across the world are increasingly participating in SDG- and sustainability-focused ranking systems such as the QS Sustainability Rankings, the Times Higher Education (THE) University Impact Rankings, and the STARS ranking by AASHE. Additionally, a few pioneering universities, such as Carnegie Mellon University and the University of California, Davis, have adapted the VLR model and initiated their own Voluntary University Reviews (VURs) to assess and report their contributions to the SDGs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSDG localization closely aligns with the concept of polycentric governance or polycentrism - a governance model fostering simultaneous action across multiple actors and scales (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In polycentric systems, diverse actors engage in dialogical processes to co-create sustainable development strategies that reflect their unique contexts, ultimately leading to more equitable, inclusive, and transformative outcomes. The multi-actor dimension of polycentric governance involves the engagement of various entities like policymakers, business stakeholders, and local communities in collective action. These actors can introduce diverse mechanisms to govern the system (e.g., subsidies, tax incentives, and regulations) (Sovacool, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The multi-scalar dimension of polycentric governance refers to the integration of efforts across different levels, including local, state, regional, and global levels see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we do not focus on the multi-scalar dimension of polycentric governance. In other words, we do not aim to capture complex relations across multiple vertical scales (e.g., global/national, national/local). Instead, we focus on the horizontal scale at the local level, examining the involvement of diverse actors in SDG implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the local level, polycentric efforts involve multiple centers of partial authority working toward SDG implementation. These actors (or centers of partial authority) include local governments, the private sector, local communities, local non-profit organizations, local non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, and, of course, HEIs (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In terms of SDG implementation, regardless of its voluntary nature, such actors make decisions related to their SDG actions independently of each other. However, their outcomes jointly affect everyone involved and residing within the surrounding community. Various actors collectively employ a variety of mechanisms, such as lobbying, public campaigns, community engagement, and strategic partnerships, to drive social change. Even decisions not to act can impact the status quo, shaping public perception, policymaking processes, and advocacy coalitions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. HEIs as a center of SDGs-related community engagement at the local level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHEIs have increasingly emerged as pivotal actors in supporting sustainable transformations among many other actors under the polycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level. Dating back to the late twelfth century, the University of Paris became the first institution to adopt a singular focus on teaching and training under the Catholic Church (Haskins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1927\u003c/span\u003e). In the nineteenth century, German universities expanded this traditional teaching mission to include research, inspired by the Humboldtian Reform that integrated research into the University of Berlin (Elton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Over time, HEIs have become central to both education and impactful research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOver a century later, a third mission emerged to reflect the evolving role of universities in contributing to society. This mission has been interpreted in various ways by scholars and practitioners. A dominant interpretation is offered by the Triple Helix Model by Etzkowitz \u0026amp; Leydesdorff (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), which positions universities as collaborators with industry and governments to foster innovation and economic development. Similarly, Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea), Leydesdorff \u0026amp; Etzkowitz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), and Gunasekara (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) conceptualize this mission as the transfer and commercialization of technology, portraying universities as drivers of economic growth and as \u0026ldquo;Entrepreneurial Universities\u0026rdquo; focused on technology transfer. Thus, in this paper, we refer to this economically oriented interpretation of the third mission as the \u003cem\u003ethird mission-as-technology-transfer\u003c/em\u003e. This terminology also allows us to distinguish it from other interpretations of the third missions that are explained below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to climate change and sustainability crises, Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea) proposed a fourth mission: co-creation for sustainability. This mission, driven by global sustainability challenges, envisions universities as \"Transformative Universities\" that engage not only with government and industry as framed in the Triple Helix model, but also the public and civil society, as articulated in the Quadruple Helix Model (Carayannis \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, scholars in transdisciplinary sustainability research argue that HEIs should prioritize serving the public good over becoming entrepreneurial, commercialized entities or extensions of political or governmental agendas (Scholz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The \"science for and with society\" approach within transdisciplinary sustainability transitions (Klein et al., 2001; Scholz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Seidl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) encourages HEIs to engage actively with society, focusing on developing, applying, and integrating scientific knowledge with other forms of knowledge, particularly the experiential expertise of practitioners, to advance sustainable development (Scholz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the third-mission-as-technology-transfer interpretation, some researchers conceptualize the third mission as community engagement (Goddard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; McCowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; McCowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In Latin America, this mission is often framed as critical outreach, engaging with diverse societal actors, and aiming to empower communities. Thus, Trencher et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea) fourth mission and the third mission-as-community-engagement share significant overlaps, which can lead to using them interchangeably by some scholars. Some similarities include the emphasis on opening universities to societal actors, addressing social and environmental challenges, fostering multi-actor collaboration, and integrating sustainability into all university areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a Freirean perspective (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), community engagement transcends isolated, project-based collaborations. Under a Freirean lens, community engagement encompasses a dialogical relationship that connects the internal routines, initiatives, and actions of the university with the external realities and needs of local communities. This perspective argues that it is crucial to distinguish between universities merely providing benefits to their communities and society and actively engaging with society to co-create and deliver those benefits. Community engagement, therefore, should be understood as a dynamic, reciprocal process in which university activities are shaped through active listening and meaningful collaboration with community members. This ensures that institutional practices are guided and informed by community perspectives prior to implementation. This approach embodies Freire\u0026rsquo;s vision of education as a liberatory practice, empowering both the university and the community to co-create sustainable solutions that foster social transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilar to the multiple interpretations of the third mission, community engagement also encompasses a wide range of forms or modes. The OECD-CERI (1982) identifies five modes of university-community interaction: (i) making university facilities available to the community, (ii) fulfilling community requests, (iii) assessing community needs, (iv) analyzing problems at the community\u0026rsquo;s request, and (v) providing solutions on behalf of the community. Building on this, Bravo and Marie (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) proposed a developmental model of university-society engagement, outlining five modes of engagement: (i) information sharing, (ii) public relations, (iii) dissemination of academic findings, (iv) cultural influence, and (v) critical engagement, which involves participatory social change across social, economic, and environmental areas. Likewise, Montesinos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) categorize engagement into three areas: (i) international collaboration, (ii) lifelong learning, and (iii) science and technology parks. Hazelkorn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) proposes a framework distinguishing three engagement approaches: (i) social justice, focused on students, service-learning, and community empowerment, typically led by student or teaching offices; (ii) economic development, centered on economic growth, technology transfer, and regional partnerships; and (iii) public good, promoting a transformative agenda that integrates engagement into the institution\u0026rsquo;s mission, governance, teaching, and research. Notably, these modes primarily focus on activities conducted \u003cem\u003efor\u003c/em\u003e society rather than in collaboration \u003cem\u003ewith\u003c/em\u003e it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the 2000s, scholars in co-creation, transdisciplinarity, and community engagement began categorizing university-community interactions by depth of engagement- from superficial to deeply embedded, and from transactional to transformational. Himmelman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) explores these variations through the lens of power and reciprocity, distinguishing between collaborative betterment - short-term, transactional projects that do not shift power - and collaborative empowerment, where communities lead, and power is shared. He argues that true transformation requires deliberative civic engagement, fostering democratic participation and accountability. Similarly, Hakkarainen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) categorized types of knowledge co-production as: (i) outcome-oriented (with non-academics as informants); (ii) practical and pragmatic (involving non-academics as stakeholders); (iii) empowering (with non-academics as partners); and (iv) transformative (where non-academics serve as co-researchers). Lastly, Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) defined different intensities of sustainability co-creation, including low, medium, and high levels of engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent decades, universities have increasingly integrated sustainability across teaching, research, operations, and sector practices, positioning themselves as key sustainability change agents (Brundiers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stephens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The adoption of the SDGs in 2015 has further amplified their role in addressing global challenges through SDG localization (McCowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Although substantial work has examined universities' third mission of community engagement (Goddard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and fourth mission (Trencher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003eb), few studies explore HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement in SDG localization. Developing an analytical framework focused on HEIs\u0026rsquo; SDG-related community engagement - covering engagement modes, key actors, activities, motivations, implementation strategies, and roles of HEIs - offers a structured approach to understanding how HEIs engage for and with society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section outlines the methods used in this study. This section begins with a description of the thematic analysis of existing literature to develop an analytical framework that captures the key dimensions of HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement. The second part explains how this analytical framework was applied to the case study, consisting of three cases from different global regions, offering insights into how HEIs operationalize and support community engagement in diverse contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Literature review and thematic analysis: Rationale and data collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis thematic analysis aims to synthesize existing research on HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement in SDG localization, identify key characteristics, and develop a structured analytical framework to guide future studies. Our research is driven by the question of whether there are identifiable commonalities and key characteristics shared by HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement globally in this area. To address this question, we aim to establish a foundation that can guide future research in this area. Our framework responds to seven key questions that we identified as essential for understanding the diverse dimensions of cross-sector community engagement by HEIs and for uncovering commonalities and distinctions among them: (1) What are the modes of SDG-related community engagement used by HEIs? (2) How are these modes defined? (3) Who are the primary actors involved? (4) Do these modes target specific SDGs, and what is the intensity of engagement? (5) What motivates HEIs to engage with their communities? (6) How are these activities implemented\u0026mdash;are they driven by top-down directives, grassroots initiatives, or a combination of both, and to what extent? (7) What roles do HEIs play throughout the engagement process?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe development of these questions draws on insights from existing literature, building on prior analyses of HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement efforts both with and for society (Benneworth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Himmelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; OECD-CERI, 1982; Trencher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). While these studies offer valuable foundations, our research identifies limitations within their frameworks. First, none of the existing frameworks fully address the seven key questions central to our analysis; instead, they primarily consist of case studies without offering a comprehensive framework that HEIs can use as a reference to understand their contributions to SDG localization through community engagement. Second, these frameworks do not capture the diverse characteristics unique to SDG-related community engagement that are central to our empirical study. Third, they have not been specifically applied within the context of SDG-oriented community engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe macro element of our study includes a literature review on HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement and outreach activities (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). For this, we reviewed: (1) university activities under the third mission-as-community-engagement (Goddard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Hazelkorn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Benneworth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e); and (2) university activities under the fourth mission of co-creation for sustainability (Trencher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003eb, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These reviews, along with insights from existing frameworks with similar approaches to SDG localization in HEIs, form the basis of the framework\u0026rsquo;s seven categories and their possible answers for each question, detailed in Section 4.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe articles were selected and scanned from February to July 2024, using the Scopus database. Such a choice is justified because the articles are cited in multidisciplinary scientific literature databases, widely accepted by researchers, and include high-impact articles in different fields. The authors searched for articles in English with published years from 2015\u0026ndash;2024, through the Boolean keyword search: (Universit* OR HEI* OR higher education institution*) AND (Sustainable Development Goal* OR SDG* OR Agenda 2030) AND (community engag* OR outreach activit* OR living lab* OR co-product* OR collaborat* OR service learning OR co-creat* for sustainability OR co-product*) AND (framework OR approach). A total of 508 articles were initially found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo authors conducted a parallel review of the titles and abstracts of the initial articles, resolving conflicts as needed. The relevance of the papers was determined using two sets of criteria. Papers were included if they focused on SDG-related transdisciplinary research, public engagement, and community engagement by universities, as verified by scanning abstracts for the term \u0026ldquo;SDGs\u0026rdquo; and reviewing content. Additionally, the articles needed to provide empirical evidence of outcomes related to SDGs, sustainability, or collaborative research, and be published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2015 and July 2024. Papers were excluded if they did not involve SDGs in higher education, focused solely on interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary practices without engaging non-academic stakeholders, or were non-peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, or editorials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the 469 articles, 352 were deemed irrelevant, and 3 were in wrong focus, leaving 112 for further examination. From this point, the authors conducted a quick scan of abstracts and, when necessary, full readings to identify the modes, actors, SDG intensity, motivations, roles, and implementation approaches of HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement programs. The literature review of 112 papers informed the development of the framework by identifying recurring themes, methodological approaches, and key findings that consistently emerged across the literature. This systematic approach allows for a clear articulation of how these insights were integrated into the analytical framework's design(see Appendix 1 for the final sample of articles).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Comparative case study analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe micro-level of this study applied the analytical framework to cases, complementing the macro-level literature review by offering insights into the unique approaches HEIs adopt in advancing community engagement for SDG implementation. To qualify, HEIs must: (1) aim to promote SDGs through community engagement and outreach; (2) collaborate across sectors, including academia, government, industry, nonprofits, and local communities; (3) include initiatives where university representatives lead or co-lead; and (4) be listed in the 2024 QS Sustainability Rankings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom here, the selection of comparative cases to refine the analytical framework considered geographical location, SDG presence, university type (public/private, research/teaching-focused), and data availability on community engagement activities (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Drawing from the 2024 QS Sustainability Rankings, we compared three universities: The University of Manchester (UK), ranked 3rd overall and representing a top institution in the Global North; the University of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo (Brazil), ranked 67th as the highest-ranked institution from the Global South; and National Taiwan University (Taiwan), ranked 94th, also from the Global South. This comparison seeks to illuminate potential discrepancies in sustainability practices across the Global North and South.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the length of the paper, which integrates both theoretical and empirical contributions, does not allow the authors to extend the analysis to additional institutions at this stage, the framework\u0026rsquo;s application beyond the selected case studies, in HEIs from other regions, for example, could shed light on the varied ways in which community engagement and SDG integration are conceptualized and enacted globally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis is non-exhaustive, utilizing archival research, secondary data, and publicly available documents, alongside an internal institutional review, with no conflicts of interest declared by the authors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQS detailed rankings of the case studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Credit\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: 2024 QS Sustainability Rankings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity of Manchester\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase 2 University of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Taiwan University\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQS Sustainability Ranking\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQS Sustainability Overall Score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3rd\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67th\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e94th\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e82.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Impact\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e94.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e98.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e89.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e87.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocial Impact\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquality\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKnowledge Exchange\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact of Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployability \u0026amp; Opportunities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealth \u0026amp; Wellbeing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e99\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e88.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e78.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e93.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGovernance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e89.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHaving objectives to promote SDGs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvolve partners from diverse sectors in SDG implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity engagement initiatives led by university actors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArea\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity type\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudent Mix\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal North\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational 45%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal South\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational 2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal South\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational 16%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Analytical framework: Macro analysis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Overview\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section introduces an analytical framework for examining HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement in SDG localization. Drawing on a comprehensive review of the literature, this framework is designed to capture the multifaceted nature of university engagement in SDG localization. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the framework, which consists of the following seven key themes: (1) Modes of engagement, (2) Conceptualization of engagement mode, (3) Involved actors, (4) SDG Intensity of engagement, (5) Motivations, (6) Implementation and engagement approaches, and (7) Roles of HEIs in SDG localization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of Seven-Level Framework of HEIs\u0026rsquo; SDGs-related Community Engagement at the Local Level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Credit\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Authors elaborated and adapted from Benneworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), Hazelkorn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), Himmelman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) and Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003ea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 levels of framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory explanation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePossible answers to each category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Mode of SDGs-related community engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat is the mode of community engagement activity?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Volunteerism \u0026amp; Student Faculty/ Staff-led Activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Service Learning \u0026amp; Social Service\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Adult Education and Lifelong Learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Public Engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Public Debate\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Living Labs\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Service Provision \u0026amp; Infrastructure Sharing\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Policy Advocacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. Technology Transfer\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e10. Expert Consulting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Definition of Mode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do we conceptualize it?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefinitions for each of the modes are explained in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Actors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWho actively participates in or influences the initiative?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Faculty\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Administration, including HEIs\u0026rsquo; leaders\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Local governments\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Local business\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Local communities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. NGOs/NPOs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. SDG Intensity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Which SDGs are targeted? Does the engagement activity approach the SDGs in a focused manner (only one or two SDGs are addressed, dealt with somehow in isolation) or comprehensively (simultaneously addressing multiple SDGs)? Which pillars of sustainability?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. SDGs; Comprehensive/ Focused; Environmental/ economic/ social sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Over how many years? (i.e., duration)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Duration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. How often do engagement activities happen?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Frequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. What is the outcome of the engagement activities?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Outcome measurement (effectiveness, efficiency, equity, political/ tech/ administrative feasibility \u0026hellip;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhy was the collaboration/ community engagement activity formed?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Missional\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Funding\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Scientific/ scholarly\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Social contribution/ community relations\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Developmental/Strategic\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Entrepreneurial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Implementation \u0026amp; Engagement Magnitude\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. What is the implementation approach?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (a) Top-down\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(b) Bottom-up\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(c) Mixed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Magnitude of engagement between partners? (from the level of \u0026ldquo;for society\u0026rdquo; to the level of \u0026ldquo;with society\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. (a) Knowledge transfer and sharing of universities and non-academic actors implement transferred knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(b) Knowledge co-production based on non-academic partners' skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(c) Equal co-production with empowered non-academic partners.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(d) Non-academic partners as co-researchers, integrating diverse knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Are there any resources from the locality?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Yes/No financial support from the locality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Role of HEIs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat is the role of HEIs in their relationship with other authorities in the polycentric ecosystem of SDG implementation at the local level?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Inventor/ innovator\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Revitalizer/ retrofitter\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Builder/ developer\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Director/ linker\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Scientific advisor/ communicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Facilitator/ empowerer\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Network connector\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Neutral convener\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Mode of SDGs-related Community Engagement and its Conceptualization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first two categories - the mode of community engagement and its conceptualization - constitute the foundational elements of the proposed framework. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, the authors identified ten distinct modes of SDG-related community engagement by HEIs, although the possibility of additional modes remains open. These ten modes, defined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, encompass a broad range of activities including: (1) Volunteerism \u0026amp; Student/Faculty/ Staff-led Activities, (2) Service Learning and Social Service, (3) Adult Education and Lifelong Learning, (4) Public Engagement, (5) Public Debate, (6) Living Labs, (7) Service Provision and Infrastructure Sharing, (8) Policy Advocacy, (9) Technology Transfer, and (10) Expert Consulting. Importantly, these modes are not mutually exclusive; universities may simultaneously adopt multiple forms of engagement. Such adoption may be coordinated as part of an institution-wide SDG localization strategy or may emerge independently within specific departments or units.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetailed 10 modes of HEIs\u0026rsquo; SDG-related community engagement activities at the local level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Credit\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Authors\u0026rsquo; elaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefinition/Conceptualization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReference Examples\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. \u003cb\u003eVolunteerism and Student/ Faculty/ Staff-led Activities\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Student, faculty, and/or staff-led grassroots projects aim to address local needs and advance SDG implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Includes student groups and local, national, and international student networks supporting the implementation of SDGs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Includes student activism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Goddard et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e, p.70) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePro-social behaviour that benefits the community and occurs within an organisational setting. This can include students working alongside the local community to salvage an old house or rebuild a community garden as part of a student group activity. Volunteerism is not always connected to academic learning.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLee et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), SDSN Youth (2024)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. \u003cb\u003eService Learning / Social Service\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- An educational approach that combines academic learning objectives with meaningful community service.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Includes service-learning classes (Thomas, 1998) and social service (which is mandatory in some countries\u0026hellip; like Mexico) (Portales et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Goddard et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e, p.70) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePedagogical and curricular engagement, where students and academic staff work collaboratively with community partners and link this work back to the classroom learning, theory, and reflection.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrugmann et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Podg\u0026oacute;rska \u0026amp; Zdonek (2023), Cuesta-Claros et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. \u003cb\u003eAdult Education and Lifelong Learning\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- An educational approach that helps acquire knowledge and skills beyond formal education throughout adulthood, in various settings and formats.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Includes Continuing Professional Development and Continuing Education Programmes of Hard-to-Reach groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Benneworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p.23) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEncouraging hard-to-reach groups to use assets\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNkatha \u0026amp; Dzinekkou (2022)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. \u003cb\u003ePublic Engagement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Public engagement includes outreach activities, public communication, awareness raising, and science communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Efforts aimed at increasing awareness, inspiring action, and mobilizing stakeholders toward achieving the SDGs, such as using social media to engage online readers on SDGs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Compared to public debate (mode 5), public engagement focuses on knowledge transfer (i.e., one-way communication).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Benneworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p.23) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePromoting public understanding and media\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAzmat et al. (2024), Agusdinata (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. \u003cb\u003ePublic Debate / Facilitator\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- HEIs can create platforms for public discourse, engaging various stakeholders, and promoting informed debate on sustainable development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From McCowan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, p.219) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eUniversities play an important part in promoting public debate, contributing to deliberation in society, in providing a space for that deliberation to take place, and raising public awareness of critical issues. These activities can take place through community engagement work, public communication of research, or hosting debates and discussions\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From McCowan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, p.228) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eUniversities acting as critical friends to society\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Benneworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p.23) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eContributing to the civic life of the region\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHirsu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), McCowan et al. (2019), Benneworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. \u003cb\u003eAdvocacy - Policy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Partnering with community groups to understand their needs and advocate for policies that address those needs by facilitating dialogues between policymakers and community members.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From El-Jardali et al. (2018, p.3) - Universities \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eplay a lead role in strengthening the science-policy interface [...] They can work with policymakers and other stakeholders to identify policy priorities/problems, assess policy options, implement solutions, and evaluate policies.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrandoloso \u0026amp; Scorsatto (2021)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. \u003cb\u003eLiving Labs\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Tercanli and Jongbloed (2022) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eAn interface for higher education institutions to collaborate with companies, citizens, nonprofit and government organizations to address a variety of problems around social challenges and sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p.154) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eEngagement of university research and expertise to establish, monitor, and evaluate real-life experiments and social interventions. Use of the urban environment as an open collaboration arena.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerdejo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Leal Filho et al. (2023), Emery et al. (2020)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. \u003cb\u003eService Provision / Infrastructure Sharing\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From McCowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e - Health clinics, legal assistance, using university assets (facilities and services such as electricity). In some countries, filling in the gaps in services that should be provided by other actors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Benneworth et al. (2013, p.23) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eMaking university assets and services open\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Bringle \u0026amp; Hatcher (2002) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eCommunity access to facilities and cultural events\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLockmun-Bissessur et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDe Amorim et al. (2020)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. \u003cb\u003eTechnology Transfer\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Technology transfer fosters SDG implementation through incubators, accelerators, and beyond.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Mainly one-directional, from university experts to other actors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, p.161) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe aim of this channel is [...] the diffusion of green technologies in a specific locality or region\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eTechnology transfer and commercialization initiatives are usually explicitly committed to driving low-carbon growth by fostering business start-ups, employment, training, and the widespread adoption of particular technologies in a specific place and set of stakeholders\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlmansour (2022), Verdejo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10. \u003cb\u003eExpert Consulting (Knowledge Transfer)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Providing expert sustainability guidance to diverse actors or expert consulting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Which could apply to governments (e.g., universities supporting developing VLRs), companies, or communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- From Benneworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, p.23) - \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eMaking intellectual contributions as experts\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Mainly one-directional, from university experts to other actors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKoria et al. (2022), Fischer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Actors in SDGs-related Community Engagement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe framework also considers the various actors involved in SDG-related community engagement who actively participate in or influence the initiatives. In this research, we identified seven key actors: faculty, administration, including HEI leaders, students, local governments, local businesses, local communities, and NGOs/NPOs. The literature provides substantial evidence of diverse stakeholders involved in partnerships and collaborations for SDG-related community engagement activities (Bridges \u0026amp; Guo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Chaves-Chaparro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Through these partnerships, HEIs can play a pivotal role as engines of sustainable transformation (Agusdinata, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Some examples of actors involved in partnerships include startup founders, partners, and employees collaborating with universities to provide public entrepreneurial training (Almansour, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); universities partnering with local governments to interact with national and subnational governments, businesses, and civil society organizations (Ningrum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e); and collaborating with a nonprofit association to help cultural heritage resource managers (Rosique Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Students also play a significant role through grassroots leadership and student-led initiatives that bring together diverse stakeholders (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, women faculty members are recognized for their impactful engagement activities that contribute to broader societal influence (Hirsu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In one notable case, hundreds of professors, students, tea farmers, residents, churches, and schools collaborated to promote sustainable development in rural communities (Chang \u0026amp; Kua, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. SDG Intensity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fourth category of the framework concerns the intensity of SDG engagement, which refers to the depth and quality of the modes through which HEIs interact with their communities. Four questions help identify SDG intensity: (1) Which SDGs are targeted in the outreach activities, and are they focused (addressing only one or two SDGs in isolation) or comprehensive (addressing multiple SDGs simultaneously)?, (2) What is the duration of the community engagement activities?, (3) How frequent are these activities?, and (4) What are the outcomes of these activities? Comprehensive approaches are frequently observed in local SDG implementation (e.g., initiatives that integrate economic revitalization, cultural preservation, and youth development (Chang \u0026amp; Kua, 2021). Such outcomes often reflect the interlinkages of multiple SDGs, as discussed in recent scholarship (Pyakurel \u0026amp; Marasini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Vien \u0026amp; Galik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the outcomes of these engagements, policymakers are encouraged to apply criteria often recommended by scholars in public policy (Dunn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). These criteria include effectiveness (achieving intended goals), efficiency (optimal use of resources), equity (fair distribution of benefits and burdens), and feasibility, encompassing political, technological, and administrative aspects. Together, these evaluative dimensions provide a robust framework for assessing the impact of HEI-led community engagement initiatives in the context of SDG localization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5. Motivation to Promote SDGs-related Community Engagement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fifth category addresses the question of motivation: Why were the SDGs-related community engagement activities formed? Building on the framework proposed by Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and supported by findings from our literature review, we identified six primary motivations operating at both individual and institutional levels (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). First, missional motivation reflects the university\u0026rsquo;s commitment to address local challenges as part of its core mission, fostering multi-actor engagements to tackle local issues (Marchigiani \u0026amp; Garofolo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Funding motivation involves the pursuit of financial support, such as green or stimulus funds for urban sustainability (Eichberg \u0026amp; Charles, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Scientific or scholarly motivation is driven by the desire to generate and disseminate knowledge through practical applications (Lepore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Social contribution or community relations motivation emphasizes the importance of benefiting the community, enhancing university reputation, and strengthening relations, especially with underserved populations (Chang \u0026amp; Kua, 2021). Developmental or strategic motivation focuses on shaping the socio-economic futures and ensuring institutional resilience and survival in the face of sustainability crises (Moyo \u0026amp; Cele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, entrepreneurial motivation seeks to generate income through sustainable real estate, green technology parks, spin-off firms, and consultancy services (Almansour, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6. Implementation \u0026amp; Engagement Magnitude\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sixth category of the framework examines how HEIs implement SDGs-related community engagement activities, the magnitude or extent of engagements among stakeholders or actors, and the degree to which local resources are mobilized. Regarding implementation approaches, these are classified as top-down, bottom-up, or mixed (Smith \u0026amp; Larimer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Top-down approaches are characterized by institutional leadership initiating and directing the implementation of SDG-related community engagement activities, while bottom-up approaches are rooted in grassroots initiatives. Our literature review reveals that HEIs employ a range of strategies, from top-down strategies, where HEIs lead initiatives in partnership with local governments, NGOs, nonprofits, industry, and community groups (Avelar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Tong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), to bottom-up approaches driven by grassroots actors, such as students and community members (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). As with other categories in our proposed framework, these authors' implementation approaches often overlap in practice, forming a continuum.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess engagement magnitude, we drew on the framework developed by Hakkarainen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which explores variants of co-productions of knowledge. We distinguished four levels of engagement (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) within two overarching modes: one-way or \u003cem\u003ecollaborative betterment\u003c/em\u003e (Himmelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), where external actors receive knowledge or solutions from the university; and two-way engagement, or \u003cem\u003ecollaborative empowerment\u003c/em\u003e (Himmelman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), where non-university actors participate as co-researchers, implementers, designers, and owners of sustainability solutions. These four variants of engagement (or co-production of knowledge) align with Hazelkorn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), Himmelman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), and Benneworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), who categorize university engagement levels based on complexity and intensity, ideally leading to changing the university at its core (i.e., transformative). While numerous examples illustrate \u003cem\u003ecollaborative betterment\u003c/em\u003e (Fischer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Lockmun-Bissessur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Podg\u0026oacute;rska \u0026amp; Zdonek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), instances of \u003cem\u003ecollaborative empowerment\u003c/em\u003e remain comparatively rare (Chang \u0026amp; Kua, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.7. Role of HEIs in SDGs-related community engagement activities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final category of the framework focuses on the roles that HEIs assume in SDGs-related community engagement, particularly in relation to other actors within the polycentric ecosystem of local SDG implementation. Drawing on the work of Trencher et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and Francis et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), we identified eight roles that HEIs can adopt in implementing SDG-related community engagement activities. Our literature review found evidence to support such roles of HEIs. First, the inventor or innovator role involves creating and spreading cutting-edge technologies and innovative ideas (Verdejo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) through collaborations and engagement focused on hard (e.g., technology R\u0026amp;D) and soft dimensions (e.g., policies or social entrepreneurialism). The revitalizers or retrofitters emphasize working with external developers and authorities to upgrade current structures and the local socio-economic framework (Chang \u0026amp; Kua, 2021). Likewise, the builder or developer role centers on initiating new infrastructure projects, where universities invest in residential areas, commercial buildings, business districts, and green technology zones (Pacagnella J\u0026uacute;nior et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the director or linker role, university actors envision future scenarios and seek partnerships to mobilize resources and expertise (Rosique Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the scientific advisor or communicator role, university actors influence local governance by sharing pilot project findings and advising on strategic actions (Croese \u0026amp; Duminy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In the facilitator or empowerer role, universities empower local stakeholders for self-directed community improvements (Chang \u0026amp; Kua, 2021). Lastly, the network connectors integrate strategic partners to enhance collective expertise (Croese \u0026amp; Duminy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), while the neutral conveners act as impartial facilitators in multi-stakeholder engagements (Francis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Comparative case studies: Microanalysis","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe analytical framework proposed above is used to guide the comparative case study analysis in this section. The three case studies are summarized according to the criteria from Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e below. The chosen case studies are not flawless representations but rather relatively suitable ones since the dual realities faced by higher education institutions (HEIs) as we mentioned before. In some regions, community engagement is legally mandated, whereas in others, HEIs operate under missions shaped primarily by regulatory norms. Moreover, their activities are often driven by priorities such as reaching high international rankings and securing research funding through global collaborations. The case studies were selected based on criteria outlined in Section 3.2 to ensure a relatively representative sample from each region, recognizing that these cases do not fully capture the diversity and complexity of HEIs as a whole. Understanding the mechanisms that drive HEIs\u0026rsquo; behaviors necessitates further research, which falls outside the scope of this study. Furthermore, given the conceptual nature of the framework, the case studies serve primarily to illustrate its application; evaluating and measuring these initiatives is not within the study's focus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is also important to note that SDG-related outreach activities encompass both successful and unsuccessful cases and may even contain elements of both within a single case, often due to structural resistance from political actors, as seen in the cases of Brazilian HEIs (Ramiro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In each case study, the authors aim to present both the successes and challenges of SDG-related community engagement activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of three case studies based on the seven-level framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Credit\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Authors\u0026rsquo; elaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Taiwan University (NTU)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo (USP)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUniversity of Manchester (UM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample Project\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePinglin NTU project\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupera Innovation and Technology Park of Ribeir\u0026atilde;o Preto\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManchester Science Park/Oxford Road Corridor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMode\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVolunteerism and student-led activities, service learning \u0026amp; social service, public engagement, living labs, technology transfer, and expert consulting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiving labs, service provision \u0026amp; infrastructure sharing, technology transfer, expert consulting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eService-learning; living labs; service provision \u0026amp; infrastructure sharing; technology transfer; expert consulting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescription\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocated in Pinglin District, a rural district of southeastern New Taipei, Taiwan. Aim to preserve and innovate the local knowledge of tea farming and the Xiang-bao folk songs; improve educational opportunities for tea farmers' children and collaborate with experienced farmers to study climate change impacts on tea cultivation, experimenting with new farming methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocated entirely on the land of USP, in the city of Ribeir\u0026atilde;o Preto, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo State, Brazil. Aims to catalyze the scientific and technological development in the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSituated adjacent to the UM, Manchester Metropolitan University, and a large hospital. Aims to enhance Manchester's knowledge economy for a more digital and sustainable future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActors\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessors and students, tea farmers and residents, local children, local churches and schools\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRector, Pro-rector of Research, faculty, staff, and students; Federal-state and city authorities, private investors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHEI Architecture; Students and faculty; Public authorities; Private investors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSDG Intensity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSDG 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,15,17; Environmental, economic \u0026amp; social.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 years. Outcome: Local tea production development, after-school clubs, cultural conservation, community-based curriculum, and knowledge co-creation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSDG 8, 9, 11,17; Environmental \u0026amp; social. Started in 2005. Outcome: Buildings of the business incubator and the Centre for Development and Applied Innovation (CEDINA) with different companies to be installed and to begin their operations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComprehensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSDG 4, 8, 9, 11, 17; Environmental \u0026amp; economic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 years. Outcome: Office and lab space, business support for start-ups, as well as infrastructure and services for organizations in life sciences, MedTech, digital tech, advanced materials, and cybersecurity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotivation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunding, Scientific, Community relations, Developmental, Entrepreneurial.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMissional, Scientific, Social contribution, Developmental.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMissional, Scientific, Social contribution, Entrepreneurial.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplementation and Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed; Place-based critical pedagogy; Transfer of technology; Co-production of place-based knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop-down; Multi-stakeholder coordination, Equal co-production with empowered non-academic partners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop-down; Multi-stakeholder coordination; Equal co-production with empowered non-academic partners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRole of HEIs\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRevitalizer, Developer, Scientific advisor, Empowerer, and Network connector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInnovator, Developer, Linker, Scientific advisor, Facilitator, Network connector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInnovator, Revitalizer, Builder, Director, Scientific advisor, Facilitator, Network connector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLevel of implementation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStrengths\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Deep community trust and local participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Integrates cultural and ecological knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Interdisciplinary collaboration between humanities, science, and agriculture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Strengthened rural education and cultural identity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Demonstrates sustainable and ethical place-based innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Strong infrastructure and university\u0026ndash;industry partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Contributes to regional economic growth and startup development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Supported by state innovation agencies (INOVA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Expands USP\u0026rsquo;s national innovation capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Provides incubator space for emerging tech sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Globally networked innovation corridor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Effective university\u0026ndash;industry\u0026ndash;public collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Strong focus on sustainable urban and digital transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Long-term strategic vision aligning with city development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Generates knowledge-based employment and high-value startups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeaknesses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Limited scalability beyond local context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Dependence on volunteer labor and university funding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Fragile economic model (non-commercialized outputs).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Difficulty measuring impact across SDGs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Challenges sustaining long-term engagement post-project.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Internal governance conflicts (university vs. government control).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Bureaucratic delays and funding instability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Uneven faculty engagement and internal competition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Weak community integration (top-down model).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Overemphasis on commercialization over academic mission.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Risk of gentrification and social exclusion around innovation zone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Market-driven pressures may overshadow community benefit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; High dependence on external investment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Uneven benefit distribution across disciplines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Complex governance across multiple institutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. National Taiwan University (Taiwan)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Taiwan University (NTU) is ranked 94th in the QS Sustainability Rankings 2024 and is the second highest-ranked university from the Global South. Among a wide range of SDGs-related projects, the case study of the NTU Pinglin project provides a compelling example of how HEIs can effectively contribute to rural sustainability and advance the localization of the SDGs. Spanning from 2011 to 2019, the Pinglin NTU project addressed the critical issue of youth emigration and talent drain in rural areas, which had exacerbated unsustainable and unequal regional development patterns. Through a multidisciplinary approach grounded in place-based critical pedagogy, the project integrated various modes of community engagement to foster balanced rural sustainability, especially in disadvantaged communities in Pinglin (Taiwan). The modes were implemented include (1) Volunteerism and student-led activities (e.g., volunteer tutors, after-school clubs), (2) Service Learning \u0026amp; Social Service (e.g., after-school service-learning classes, home tutoring, church-supported programs), (3) Public Engagement (e.g., performances for primary and middle school students, awareness-raising on Xiang-bao folk song in puppet shows or Taiwanese operas), (4) Living Labs (e.g., social-enterprise businesses promoting eco-friendly tea farming or start-up tea companies), (5) Technology Transfer (e.g., tea-making technology), and (6) Expert Consulting (e.g., aiding Pinglin\u0026rsquo;s rural revitalization).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis initiative engaged hundreds of professors and students, tea farmers and residents, local churches and schools, establishing socio-cultural and economic networks for knowledge exchange and communities of practice between rural communities and metropolitan colleges. Aligned with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and particularly SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), the Pinglin project exemplified synergies among these goals through collaborative, interdisciplinary actions. Key to its success was the stakeholders' motivations, driven by personal interests and mutual benefits, which facilitated the creation of social spaces in Pinglin (Chang \u0026amp; Kuo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This collaborative effort absorbed local knowledge and wisdom, guiding relationship-oriented actions aimed at supporting community development. Moreover, with a mixed implementation approach, the project in Pinglin was implemented with the support of National Taiwan University through its place-based critical pedagogy, intertwined with bottom-up initiatives such as Xinya (which means \u0026ldquo;new buds\u0026rdquo;) club, and New Bug club.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe project engaged dedicated instructors, villagers, and local institutions, leading to transformative changes in local tea production inspired by two new NTU tea brands, the establishment of youth after-school clubs, and the integration of Xiang-bao folk music into school curricula. Engagements between young scientists and farmers in climate studies enhanced the project's impact. NTU's approach promoted socially responsible teaching, empowering instructors to choose community-focused subjects and locations, with effective teaching teams guiding new instructors. Early and consistent stakeholder involvement fostered inclusive collaboration and knowledge co-creation. Through hands-on fieldwork, students gained interdisciplinary knowledge and practical skills, contributing to community-driven research and exploring career paths. The project's focus on preserving and re-imagining tacit knowledge and intangible heritage emphasized its commitment to rural sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis case serves as an example of how initial failure in supporting local tea farmers revealed vulnerabilities within the fair-trade system, ultimately prompting a shift toward a more sustainable and community-driven approach. In 2013, the research team failed to assist tea farmers in selling Baozhong tea to a national dealer, as the deal fell through due to rising costs that disproportionately affected small-scale, high-altitude farmers, who lacked bargaining power, faced unstable market prices, and struggled to meet the ecological and certification requirements of conventional fair-trade mechanisms. In response, NTU implemented an integrated social innovation model that combined academic research, community-based development, and environmental sustainability (Chang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe university first established a localized eco-certification system aligned with Pinglin\u0026rsquo;s watershed conservation objectives. This initiative yielded notable outcomes: within two years, average farmer incomes increased by approximately 18%, while the use of chemical inputs declined by 40%, resulting in measurable improvements in watershed water quality. Building on these achievements, NTU facilitated the creation of a legally registered enterprise to market tea products directly, supported by university students who contributed through social media promotion (Chang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Such a prompt shows the role of HEIs as revitalizers and empowerers, along with their motivation, partnerships, and entrepreneurial spirit to revitalize the local economy. Despite challenges, the HEI initiative fostered resilience among young farmers, who reclaimed their heritage and developed a sense of ownership over their craft, highlighting the importance of adaptability and community collaboration in addressing market vulnerabilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplying the seven-level framework (see Case 1 in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) to the case study of NTU provides a clearer view of NTU's co-creation activities with the Pinglin community. NTU's Pinglin project illustrates how HEIs can significantly advance rural sustainability through collaborative, interdisciplinary approaches, contributing to the achievement of SDGs and fostering inclusive, sustainable development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. University of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo (Brazil)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother example from the Global South is the case of the University of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo (USP) in Brazil, which holds the 67th position in the QS Sustainability Rankings 2024 and is the top-ranked university in the Global South. Similar to NTU, USP has implemented various SDG-related projects. USP's case study highlights how HEIs can foster a sustainability culture and develop SDGs through tailored administrative structures. Ecological reserves at USP focus on SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land), showcasing their commitment to environmental conservation. These reserves protect native vegetation on USP campuses, preserve local and regional biodiversity, and serve functions such as conservation, education, research, and community engagement, emphasizing the university's role in local and global environmental efforts (De A. Romero \u0026amp; Kronka M\u0026uuml;lfarth, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Supera Innovation and Technology Park of Ribeir\u0026atilde;o Preto (in short \u0026ldquo;the Ribeir\u0026atilde;o Preto Science Park\u0026rdquo;) illustrates a sustainability-focused partnership between USP, the Municipality of Ribeir\u0026atilde;o Preto, the State of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo's Department of Economic Development, Science, Technology, and Innovation, and the Advanced Pole Institute of Health Foundation (FIPASE), with support from other private and public organizations. This engagement fostered research, development, and innovation in biotechnology and bioenergy within local production systems (Pacagnella J\u0026uacute;nior et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Such Science Park, functioning as living laboratories, aims to commercialize academic research outcomes, broadening financial resource avenues and expanding job opportunities for researchers and students. The Science Park, located on USP land next to its campus, aims to foster synergy between the university, government, and businesses for research, development, and innovation. By hosting corporate R\u0026amp;D units and production systems, it seeks to boost regional scientific and technological development, primarily attracting technology-intensive companies in biotechnology, information technology, and bioenergy, while welcoming other fields as well.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the seven-level framework proposed, the authors identified these modes implemented by USP in promoting the Science Park: living labs, service provision \u0026amp; infrastructure sharing, technology transfer, and expert consulting. These initiatives involve multiple stakeholders with diverse interests and levels of influence: FIPASE aims to develop the region; USP focuses on fostering technology transfer and spin-offs; the Municipality of Ribeir\u0026atilde;o Preto seeks job creation and tax revenue; the State of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo's Department of Economic Development, Science, Technology, and Innovation aims to establish a network of technology parks; the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation aims to promote technological innovation nationwide; and private investors initially pursued real estate development and investment returns, although they withdrew midway through the planning. Furthermore, the development of the Science Park engages various university stakeholders, including rectors, the pro-rector of research, faculty, students, and staff involved in research, outreach, funding, planning, and administration. This organizational involvement shapes the development and implementation of sustainability initiatives at USP. The active participation of faculty and staff in decision-making fosters ownership and engagement in sustainability efforts, potentially enhancing their integration and success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the case study does not document explicit implementation failures, it highlights the critical role of stakeholder management practices in ensuring the success of science park initiatives. Effective stakeholder engagement is essential, as divergent interests among key actors can generate significant tensions. The implementation of the Science Park initiative revealed several such conflicts. Faculty and researchers, for instance, expressed concern that the park\u0026rsquo;s strong emphasis on commercialization and start-up incubation compromised the academic mission of USP, traditionally focused on public knowledge and non-proprietary research. Disputes over intellectual property (IP) rights arose when corporate partners demanded exclusive rights to inventions produced with university resources (Chais et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Pacagnella J\u0026uacute;nior et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcurrently, local communities (especially in Butant\u0026atilde;, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo) resisted construction due to environmental and traffic concerns. Environmental NGOs accused the university of deforestation and inadequate public consultation, which led USP to revise its environmental impact plan, delaying the second expansion phase (Chais et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Pacagnella J\u0026uacute;nior et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, small and medium-sized enterprises with an innovative-oriented culture have served as primary drivers of the science park\u0026rsquo;s technological ecosystem. Higher education institutions (HEIs) in the region function as scientific advisors, facilitators, and innovators, thereby playing a pivotal role in supporting the success of community engagement and knowledge-transfer initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing the seven-level framework (see Case 2 in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) to analyze the USP case study offers insight into USP's collaborative activities with federal, state, and city agencies in designing and executing the Science Park. This case study illustrates how HEIs can support SDGs through outreach and partnerships. The administrative structures of HEIs significantly influence these initiatives, with motivated and engaged faculty and staff playing a crucial role in achieving success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3. The University of Manchester (The UK)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe University of Manchester (UM), the only one from Global North among three case studies, is ranked 3rd in the QS Sustainability Rankings 2024 and is a leading institution from the Global North in implementing SDGs through innovative projects and public-private partnerships. A key example is the Manchester Science Park, a commercial mixed-use development project situated adjacent to the UM, Manchester Metropolitan University, and a large hospital. Funded and delivered by Manchester Science Partnerships, it involves stakeholders such as Bruntwood SciTech, Manchester City Council, UM, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Cheshire East Council, and Salford City Council. The park offers office and lab space, and business support for start-ups, as well as infrastructure and services for organizations in life sciences, medtech, digital tech, advanced materials, and cybersecurity. Such a living laboratory has adopted the Urban Living Labs (ULLs) concept to promote education for sustainable development. Like those at MIT, UM's ULLs turn the academic environment into hands-on learning spaces focused on sustainability. Moreover, the partnership's website highlights investments in urban development within the digital sector, aimed at boosting Manchester's knowledge economy for a digital and greener future (Ng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Manchester Science Park is part of the Oxford Road Corridor, a high-intensity co-creation area in Manchester\u0026rsquo;s central business and education district. This district includes Manchester's hospitals, universities, and the Manchester Science Park, functioning as a \"living lab\" focused on scientific knowledge production and flexible governance to address emerging life challenges. The 2012 Manchester Local Plan acknowledged the economic benefits of commercializing education and healthcare activities, combined with private sector investment in science and technology, for the Greater Manchester economy. This project exemplifies a successful public-private partnership led by Manchester City Council and UM (Ng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Manchester Science Park, guided by the seven-level framework, implements modes such as service-learning, living labs, service provision and infrastructure sharing, technology transfer, and expert consulting. Local authorities, particularly the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and its ten districts, play a vital role in producing, managing, and utilizing digital data. Unlike the critical view of global smart city initiatives that often see public organizations as \"powerless,\" GMCA actively shapes the digital ecosystem in Greater Manchester. This proactive approach stems from a history of collaboration and engagement among public, private, and third sectors, leading to the formation of the Manchester Science Park (Ng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne challenge faced by the University of Manchester and Greater Manchester in implementing SDG-related community engagement activities is understanding the impact of digital technologies and their interaction with spatial planning on sustainable development. This raises concerns about social equity, particularly as the project has struggled to translate economic growth into improved prosperity for many residents and communities, with nearly half of Manchester's neighborhoods falling into England's most deprived decile. This poses a critical question for HEIs aiming to promote digital sectors and economic development projects. Additionally, limited access to proprietary data from private companies like Google complicates stakeholder partnerships during project implementation. If HEIs fail to address these questions, it could ultimately endanger the long-term success of their SDG-related outreach activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, UM demonstrates SDG implementation through strategic public-private partnerships (SDG 17), innovative urban development (SDG 11), transformative education (SDG 4), economic growth (SDG 8), and innovation and infrastructure development (SDG 9). Through experiential learning, the University of Manchester not only contributes to sustainable development but also equips students with essential skills to tackle future challenges effectively (see Case 3 in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three case studies illustrate a comprehensive approach to community engagement and SDG implementation, each reflecting unique geographic and contextual influences. NTU in Taiwan (Global South) addresses SDGs 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 17 through initiatives like local tea production, after-school clubs, cultural conservation, community-based curricula, and knowledge co-creation, encompassing environmental, economic, and social dimensions over nine years. Similarly, USP in Brazil (Global South) has focused on SDGs 8, 9, 11, and 17 since 2005, achieving notable outcomes through its business incubator and the Centre for Development and Applied Innovation (CEDINA), which foster partnerships with various companies for environmental and social benefits. In contrast, UM in the UK (Global North) has emphasized SDGs 4, 8, 9, 11, and 17 over a decade, focusing on infrastructure for office and lab space and business support for startups, primarily addressing economic and environmental sustainability. It is noteworthy that NTU in Taiwan (Global South) emphasizes all three aspects of sustainability\u0026mdash;environmental, economic, and social\u0026mdash;while the cases from the Global North, such as UM in the UK, primarily focus on economic and environmental dimensions, with less emphasis on social aspects that can lead to social equity questions. Despite these differences, all three institutions incorporate environmental elements into their community engagement efforts, reflecting a shared commitment to addressing sustainability challenges in their respective contexts. Overall, while each institution employs a comprehensive strategy tailored to its context, its varied outcomes reflect the diverse pathways to achieving sustainable development goals across different regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAlthough the sample was limited through literature review and comparative case study analysis to form and complement the analytical framework and the findings in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, the study still uncovered some remarkable observations. These insights stem from case studies, which provide complementary examples, and from the literature review, which serve as the primary foundation for the results and discussion presented below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRole of partnership\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe seven-level framework highlights the core role of collaboration, cooperation, and partnerships (i.e., SDG 17) in promoting community engagement among diverse actors, including HEIs, within a polycentric ecosystem for implementing SDGs-related activities. In the multidimensional, multi-stakeholder context of SDGs (Su\u0026aacute;rez-Serrano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), HEIs are no longer seen as ivory towers but are increasingly positioning themselves as key players with significant authority in co-creating transformative changes. Furthermore, the literature reveals that the cross-sector engagements are sometimes not initiated by HEIs but by other stakeholders such as state or local governments aiming to develop urban sustainability (Trencher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), which complements our proposed framework related to different roles of HEIs during this process, both innovators/builders and followers/linkers/network connectors (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eActors and Motivation\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs they reframe their roles, HEIs must seek resources to finance sustainable development. Resources can be secured through intra-organizational and inter-organizational collaborations and engagements. This involves seeking partnerships both within HEIs (among colleges, departments, faculty members, and student organizations) and beyond their boundaries. External partnerships may include local governments (providing legal and financial support), the business sector (offering technology or funding opportunities), local communities, NGOs/NPOs, and occasionally interest groups. Our case studies revealed the formation of various partnerships among these identifiable actors. Notably, the role of HEIs during this process is not only in a positive signal but also in a negative way. Sometimes, HEIs are primarily driven by practical concerns (e.g., funding, ranking) rather than scientific ones and often originate from university administration or intermediary organizations like sustainability or community outreach offices (Wiewel \u0026amp; Perry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). While HEIs\u0026rsquo; motivations, such as enhancing rankings, attracting funding, or fulfilling legal mandates, can drive engagement, overemphasis on these incentives may risk prioritizing institutional gain over meaningful community impact. These motivations can influence the long-term sustainability of projects, as initiatives grounded primarily in external incentives may fade once funding or performance pressures change, whereas projects driven by genuine community needs and strong partnerships are more likely to endure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSDG intensity\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eA unique aspect of the framework is its emphasis on SDG intensity. We found that HEIs worldwide are implementing their engagement activities more comprehensively, addressing multiple SDGs simultaneously, rather than focusing on one or two in isolation. Additionally, HEIs are addressing all three pillars of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) rather than concentrating on a single aspect. They are increasingly focusing on disadvantaged communities to create more sustainable cities and communities (SDGs 10 and 11). This approach complements existing literature on the interlinkages of SDGs (Pyakurel \u0026amp; Marasini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and the impact of HEIs' pro-environmental actions on urban sustainability, particularly in reducing inequalities and fostering a more sustainable society (Vien \u0026amp; Galik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eImplementation and Policy Impact\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eHEIs' SDG-related community engagement activities range from their SDG top-down implementation\u0026mdash;prominently promoting university-led SDG initiatives in partnerships with communities, local governments, NGOs, nonprofit organizations, and industry (Avelar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Tong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;to the SDG bottom-up implementation, chiefly relying on student-led or community-led initiatives to deliver individual SDG initiatives (Brugmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Our analysis of case studies revealed that two out of three cases employed top-down approaches, while one used a mixed approach for implementing SDG-related community engagement activities. More data is needed to determine which method is more prevalent and effective. The implementation process also suggests both successful and failed aspects when implementing SDGs. Regardless of the approach, it is evident that such implementation influences current and future policy design and execution. The increased participation of HEIs in SDG implementation is expected to trigger a positive feedback loop. In this loop, policies and initiatives from various stakeholders will mutually reinforce each other, thereby raising climate action. The proactive efforts of HEIs concerning the SDGs will inspire policymakers to enact more ambitious policies, which in turn will encourage greater participation of HEIs in the SDGs, creating a continuous cycle of enhanced engagement and impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eGeneralization\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe have identified ten modes of implementation across various categories through literature review, including volunteerism and student-led activities; service learning / social service; adult education and lifelong learning; public engagement; public debate/facilitator; advocacy-policy; living labs; service provision/infrastructure sharing; technology transfer; and expert consulting (knowledge transfer) (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Through an extensive review of case studies and literature, we found that numerous leading universities globally\u0026mdash;spanning Europe, the Americas, Asia, Oceania, and Africa\u0026mdash;have undertaken SDG-related community engagement activities. This indicates that the new mission of co-creating sustainability is becoming relatively widespread among HEIs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFuture development\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe framework holds promise for future advancement. While we have identified 10 modes of engagement and categorized them within a seven-level framework, we acknowledge that there may be additional modes that we did not capture due to the limitations of our sample pool. Furthermore, much of the literature we reviewed dates from 2015 to early 2025, suggesting ongoing initiatives and continual evolution in HEIs' practices, characteristics, and categories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is one of the first to examine literature reviews and case studies about HEIs' community engagement initiatives related to the SDGs. By identifying commonalities and differences across HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement activities, the authors have developed a seven-category framework that can be generalized to HEIs worldwide. This framework serves as a structured and versatile tool for assessing HEIs\u0026rsquo; SDG-related community engagement activities and addresses seven key questions: (1) What modes of SDG-related community engagement are employed by HEIs? (2) How are these modes defined? (3) Who are the primary actors involved? (4) Do these modes target specific SDGs, and what is the intensity of engagement? (5) What motivates HEIs to engage with their communities? (6) How are these activities implemented\u0026mdash;are they driven by top-down directives, grassroots initiatives, or a combination of both? (7) What roles do HEIs play throughout the engagement process? Such questions are answered and supported by literature review and case studies (see Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), highlighting the role of partnerships, actors, and their motivation, SDG intensity, implementation, policy impact, generalization, and future development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe three case studies, represented by both Global North and Global South, have revealed that HEIs\u0026rsquo; outreach efforts in SDG implementation are a global phenomenon. The nature of SDGs is voluntary; however, there is a wide range of SDGs-related community engagement activities initiated by HEIs worldwide, showing the trend among HEIs worldwide in moving toward the third and fourth missions of community engagement and co-producing for sustainability. Among the key similarities are: 1) a trend of opening up universities to diverse societal actors; 2) the redirection of universities towards solving social and environmental (i.e., sustainability) challenges facing humanity; 3) the need for multi-actor engagements to solve those challenges; and 4) the hope that this increased engagement with societal actors to support sustainability transformations will permeate all areas of universities, thus transforming them. To advance these efforts, HEIs can better integrate bottom-up initiatives with top-down strategies through participatory governance that include students, communities, and other stakeholders. Such integration helps ensure that institutional actions remain globally aligned yet locally relevant. To ensure the long-term sustainability of these initiatives, building trust with community partners, securing stable resources, institutionalizing engagement practices, and fostering ongoing communication and shared ownership are key mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerning the limitations of this study, we concentrated on HEIs' community engagement initiatives related to the SDGs through literature reviews and case studies, without incorporating interviews or surveys, due to the short time frame allocated for this paper. This may indicate a lack of empirical data, underscoring the need for further research in this field and highlighting the importance of sharing experiences and best practices across academia, industry, government, and communities. Such empirical studies could offer a more complete picture of the personal experiences, perceived effectiveness, and feasibility of community-led SDG initiatives, offering testimonial best practices for future projects. Besides, we recognize that selecting these cases cannot fully capture or represent the entire landscape of university activities related to SDG localization within a region or country, especially given the diversity in university organization, goals, and implementation strategies, such as the varied contexts of Brazilian universities implementing the SDGs (Galv\u0026atilde;o \u0026amp; De Menezes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the motivations behind universities\u0026rsquo; efforts to localize SDGs fall outside the scope of this study, so factors such as legal mandates, normative influences, or aspirations for higher rankings and research funding are not considered here.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAreas for further research could include a deeper examination of the modes of engagement and collaborative networks for sustainability co-creation among HEIs, considering how different stakeholders' varying levels of power and interest (Olander \u0026amp; Landin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) impact SDG implementation. Additionally, exploring the perspective of other actors (e.g., local governments, local businesses, or communities) on SDG localization, where HEIs play a supporting role, would be insightful. Future studies of this kind could employ qualitative empirical methods (e.g., surveys or interviews) to address this paper\u0026rsquo;s limitation regarding primary data. Such approaches could offer a more comprehensive understanding of personal experiences, perceived effectiveness, and the feasibility of community-led SDG initiatives, as well as document testimonial best practices to inform future projects and enrich the literature on community-led SDG projects. Moreover, investigating the mechanisms behind decisions to incorporate SDGs into HEIs\u0026rsquo; activities can shed light on the practical realities of SDG localization. Empirical studies that apply this seven-category framework would also be valuable. Especially, research that validates the framework by demonstrating its applicability in HEIs from other regions, particularly in underrepresented areas beyond the cases examined in this study, can strengthen the global relevance of the findings on community engagement and SDG integration of HEIs worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgusdinata, D. B. (2022). The role of universities in SDGs solution co-creation and implementation: A human-centered design and shared-action learning process. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1589\u0026ndash;1604.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAleixo, A. M., Azeiteiro, U. M., \u0026amp; Leal, S. (2020). Are the sustainable development goals being implemented in the Portuguese higher education formative offer? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 336\u0026ndash;352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmansour, M. (2024). Business Incubators and Entrepreneurial Training: Leveraging Technological Innovations and Digital Marketing. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3180212\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAvelar, A. B. A., da Silva Oliveira, K. D., \u0026amp; Farina, M. C. (2023). The integration of the Sustainable Development Goals into curricula, research and partnerships in higher education. \u003cem\u003eInternational Review of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(3), 299\u0026ndash;325.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenneworth, P. (Ed.). (2013). \u003cem\u003eUniversity engagement with socially excluded communities\u003c/em\u003e. Springer Verlag.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBexell, M., Bornemann, B., Moallemi, E. A., \u0026amp; Vien, H. B. (2025). Accelerating the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals at the local level: Unpacking governance processes and tensions. \u003cem\u003eEarth System Governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e, 100264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100264\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBravo, R., \u0026amp; Marie, R. (1992). \u003cem\u003eHacia una difusi\u0026oacute;n cultural universitaria\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBridges, A., \u0026amp; Guo, D. (2024). Aligning stakeholder goals: Implications for inclusive urban sustainability. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e, 101082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101082\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrugmann, R., C\u0026ocirc;t\u0026eacute;, N., Postma, N., Shaw, E. A., Pal, D., \u0026amp; Robinson, J. B. (2019). Expanding student engagement in sustainability: Using SDG-and CEL-focused inventories to transform curriculum at the University of Toronto. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 530.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebri\u0026aacute;n, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., Dripps, W., Habron, G., Harr\u0026eacute;, N., Jarchow, M., Losch, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R., Walker, P., \u0026amp; Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education\u0026mdash;Toward an agreed-upon reference framework. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCabral, R., \u0026amp; Galv\u0026atilde;o, T. G. (2022). Reimagining the UN 2030 agenda by connecting the sdg to culture, art and communication. \u003cem\u003eRevista Latinoamericana de Ciencias de La Comunicaci\u0026oacute;n\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(41), 44\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarayannis, E. G., \u0026amp; Campbell, D. F. (2009). \u0026ldquo;Mode 3\u0026rsquo;and\u0026rsquo;Quadruple Helix\u0026rdquo;: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 201\u0026ndash;234.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentre for Educational Research and Innovation \u0026amp; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD-CERI]. (1982). \u003cem\u003eThe University and the Community: The Problems of Changing Relationships\u003c/em\u003e. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Washington, DC.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChais, C., Patr\u0026iacute;cia Ganzer, P., \u0026amp; Munhoz Olea, P. (2018). Technology transfer between universities and companies: Two cases of Brazilian universities. \u003cem\u003eInnovation \u0026amp; Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 20\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-02-2018-002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, S. E. (2013). Blue Magpie TEAgriculture: Eco-tea Cultivation and Participatory Farming in Pinglin Satoyama, Taiwan. \u003cem\u003eProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e101\u003c/em\u003e, 14\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.174\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, S. E., \u0026amp; Kuo, M.-Y. (2021). A place-based pedagogical action study to enrich rural sustainability: Knowledge ties of national Taiwan university\u0026rsquo;s 10-year partnership with Pinglin. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052916\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, S. E., Yang, Z., Duo, M., \u0026amp; Hsiao, T. (2016). Participatory agricultural humanities for the new ruralism tea-community revitalization in Taiwan. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 251\u0026ndash;256.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChankseliani, M., \u0026amp; McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the sustainable development goals. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChaves-Chaparro, J., Aguirre-Bastos, C., \u0026amp; Dom\u0026iacute;nguez-G\u0026oacute;mez, J. A. (2025). The sustainability science approach in sub-Saharan Africa: Key lessons from five case studies. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01616-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClement, J., Ruysschaert, B., \u0026amp; Crutzen, N. (2023). Smart city strategies \u0026ndash; A driver for the localization of the sustainable development goals? \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e213\u003c/em\u003e, 107941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107941\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCompagnucci, L., \u0026amp; Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. \u003cem\u003eTechnological Forecasting and Social Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e161\u003c/em\u003e, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCroese, S., \u0026amp; Duminy, J. (2023). Co-producing urban expertise for SDG localization: The history and practices of urban knowledge production in South Africa. \u003cem\u003eUrban Geography\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 538\u0026ndash;557. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2022.2079868\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCuesta-Claros, A., Malekpour, S., Raven, R., \u0026amp; Kestin, T. (2023). Are the sustainable development goals transforming universities? \u0026ndash; An analysis of steering effects and depth of change. \u003cem\u003eEarth System Governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e, 100186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2023.100186\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe A. Romero, M., \u0026amp; Kronka M\u0026uuml;lfarth, R. C. (2017). University of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo: Sustainability masterplan for policies, plans, goals and actions. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Volume 4\u003c/em\u003e, 509\u0026ndash;530.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Negreiros, D. F., \u0026amp; Dos Santos, E. G. (2024). Ten Years of the Implementation of Affirmative Action Law for Black Students in Higher Education Institutions: Challenges and Strategies Related to the SDG. In T. G. Galvao \u0026amp; H. Z. De Menezes (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 283\u0026ndash;295). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9_20\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunn, W. N. (2015). \u003cem\u003ePublic policy analysis: An integrated approach\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEichberg, E. T. A. M., \u0026amp; Charles, A. (2024). The Role of the Civic University in Facilitating Inclusive and Transformative Pedagogical Approaches to the Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(7), 2752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072752\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElMassah, S., \u0026amp; Mohieldin, M. (2020). Digital transformation and localizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e169\u003c/em\u003e, 106490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106490\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElton, L. (2008). Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt\u0026rsquo;s relevance to British Universities today. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(3), 224\u0026ndash;236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00388.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEtzkowitz, H., \u0026amp; Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. \u003cem\u003eEASST Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 14\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFia, M., Ghasemzadeh, K., \u0026amp; Paletta, A. (2023). How higher education institutions walk their talk on the 2030 Agenda: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 599\u0026ndash;632. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-022-00277-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFischer, B., Guerrero, M., Guim\u0026oacute;n, J., \u0026amp; Schaeffer, P. R. (2021). Knowledge transfer for frugal innovation: Where do entrepreneurial universities stand? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Knowledge Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 360\u0026ndash;379. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2020-0040\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrancis, J. N. P., Henriksson, K., \u0026amp; Stewart Alonso, J. (2021). Collaborating for transformation: Applying the Co-Laboratorio approach to bridge research, pedagogy and practice. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tudes Du D\u0026eacute;veloppement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 416\u0026ndash;439. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1797650\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreire, P. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In \u003cem\u003eToward a sociology of education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 374\u0026ndash;386). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFühr, R. (2025). Localization. In \u003cem\u003eEssential Concepts for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: An AZ Guide\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 84\u0026ndash;85). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalv\u0026atilde;o, T. G., \u0026amp; De Menezes, H. Z. (Eds.). (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals: Living experiences in territorializing the 2030 Agenda in Brazil\u003c/em\u003e. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalv\u0026atilde;o, T. G., \u0026amp; Green, C. (2025). Education for Sustainable Development. In \u003cem\u003eEssential Concepts for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: An AZ Guide\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 39\u0026ndash;40). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalv\u0026atilde;o, T. G., Lima, M. G. B., \u0026amp; Ramiro, R. (2023). Bottom-up regionality and the Sustainable Development Goals: Civil society organizations shaping 2030 Agenda implementation in Latin America. \u003cem\u003eRevista Brasileira de Pol\u0026iacute;tica Internacional\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e66\u003c/em\u003e(2), e021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., \u0026amp; Vallance, P. (Eds.). (2016). \u003cem\u003eThe Civic University: The policy and leadership challenges\u003c/em\u003e. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717728\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoyeneche, O. Y. R., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., \u0026amp; Arroyave, F. (2022). Mobilizing the transformative power of research for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. \u003cem\u003eResearch Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(10), 104589.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGunasekara, C. (2006). The generative and developmental roles of universities in regional innovation systems. \u003cem\u003eScience and Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 137\u0026ndash;150.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHakkarainen, V., M\u0026auml;kinen‐Rostedt, K., Horcea‐Milcu, A., D\u0026rsquo;Amato, D., J\u0026auml;ms\u0026auml;, J., \u0026amp; Soini, K. (2022). Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: Towards an integrative and transformative use of co‐concepts. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 309\u0026ndash;325. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2276\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaskins, C. H. (1927). \u003cem\u003eThe renaissance of the twelfth century\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHazelkorn, E. (2016). Contemporary debates part 2: Initiatives, governance and organisational structures. In \u003cem\u003eThe Civic University\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 65\u0026ndash;93). Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHimmelman, A. T. (2001). On coalitions and the transformation of power relations: Collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Community Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirsu, L., Quezada-Reyes, Z., \u0026amp; Hashemi, L. (2021). Moving SDG5 forward: Women\u0026rsquo;s public engagement activities in higher education. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51\u0026ndash;67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00597-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelly, O., White, P., Butera, F., Illingworth, S., Martens, P., Huynen, M., Bailey, S., Schuitema, G., \u0026amp; Cowman, S. (2023). A transdisciplinary model for teaching and learning for sustainability science in a rapidly warming world. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2707\u0026ndash;2722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01407-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlein, J. T. (2001). \u003cem\u003eTransdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity\u003c/em\u003e. Springer Science \u0026amp; Business Media.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, B., Liu, K., Warnock, T. S., Kim, M. O., \u0026amp; Skett, S. (2023). Students leading students: A qualitative study exploring a student-led model for engagement with the sustainable development goals. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 535\u0026ndash;552. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2022-0037\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLepore, W., Hall, B. L., \u0026amp; Tandon, R. (2021). The Knowledge for Change Consortium: A decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tudes Du D\u0026eacute;veloppement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 347\u0026ndash;370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2020.1838887\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeydesdorff, L., \u0026amp; Etzkowitz, H. (1998). Triple Helix of innovation: Introduction. \u003cem\u003eScience and Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(6), 358\u0026ndash;364.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLockmun-Bissessur, V. N., Samy, M., \u0026amp; Peeroo, S. (2023). Contribution to the Implementation of SDG 4: The Case of Universit\u0026eacute; des Mascareignes, Mauritius. In D. Crowther \u0026amp; S. Seifi (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePreparing for a Sustainable Future\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 109\u0026ndash;130). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2456-1_6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez, I. L., Bote, M., Rives, L. M., \u0026amp; Ba\u0026ntilde;\u0026oacute;n, A. R. (2019). Higher education institutions as a transformation platform under the sustainable development goals framework. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(3), 306\u0026ndash;306.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalekpour, S., Raven, R., Allen, C., Moallemi, E. A., Ningrum, D., Cuesta-Claros, A., Grainger-Brown, J., Trundle, A., Kestin, T., Coy, D., Dechrai, I., Walters, J., \u0026amp; Bryan, B. (2024). Transformative localization to accelerate the 2030 Agenda. \u003cem\u003eNature Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01324-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarchigiani, E., \u0026amp; Garofolo, I. (2023). Italian Universities for Territorial Sustainable Development and Responsible Communities\u0026mdash;The Case Study of the University of Trieste. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032325\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCowan, T. (2019). \u003cem\u003eHigher education for and beyond the sustainable development goals\u003c/em\u003e. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCowan, T. (2023). The crosscutting impact of higher education on the Sustainable Development Goals. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e103\u003c/em\u003e, 102945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102945\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J., \u0026amp; Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education in Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2\u0026ndash;3), 259\u0026ndash;271.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., Evans, L., Cohen, P., Song, A. M., \u0026amp; Turner, R. (2019). The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e, 101934.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoyo, I., \u0026amp; Cele, H. M. S. (2021). Protected areas and environmental conservation in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: On HEIs, livelihoods and sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1536\u0026ndash;1551. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2020-0157\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeary, J., \u0026amp; Osborne, M. (2018). University engagement in achieving sustainable development goals: A synthesis of case studies from the SUEUAA study. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Adult Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(3), 336\u0026ndash;364.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg, M. K., Koksal, C., Wong, C., \u0026amp; Tang, Y. (2022). Smart and sustainable development from a spatial planning perspective: The case of Shenzhen and Greater Manchester. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(6), 3509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063509\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNingrum, D., Raven, R., Malekpour, S., Moallemi, E. A., \u0026amp; Bryan, B. A. (2023). Transformative potential in sustainable development goals engagement: Experience from local governance in Australia. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e, 102670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102670\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlander, S., \u0026amp; Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Project Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 321\u0026ndash;328.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlawumi, T. O., \u0026amp; Chan, D. W. (2018). A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e183\u003c/em\u003e, 231\u0026ndash;250.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrtiz-Moya, F., \u0026amp; Reggiani, M. (2023). Contributions of the voluntary local review process to policy integration: Evidence from frontrunner cities. \u003cem\u003eNpj Urban Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePacagnella J\u0026uacute;nior, A. C., Porto, G. S., Pac\u0026iacute;fico, O., \u0026amp; Salgado J\u0026uacute;nior, A. P. (2015). Project Stakeholder Management: A Case Study of a Brazilian Science Park. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Technology Management \u0026amp; Innovation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 39\u0026ndash;49. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000200004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParr, A., Binagwaho, A., \u0026amp; Stirling, A. (2022). \u003cem\u003eKnowledge-driven actions: Transforming higher education for global sustainability\u003c/em\u003e. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/YBTV1653\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodg\u0026oacute;rska, M., \u0026amp; Zdonek, I. (2024). Interdisciplinary collaboration in higher education towards sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2085\u0026ndash;2103.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePurcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., \u0026amp; Spengler, J. D. (2019). Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals: \u0026ldquo;Living labs\u0026rdquo; for sustainability. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1343\u0026ndash;1357. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2019-0103\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePyakurel, P., \u0026amp; Marasini, R. (2021). Policy planning to achieve sustainable development goals for low-income nations. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 100673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100673\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamiro, R. (2024). The Brazilian National Landscape in Governing and Implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. In T. G. Galvao \u0026amp; H. Z. De Menezes (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3\u0026ndash;18). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59279-9_1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRenaud, F. G., Zhou, X., Bosher, L., Barrett, B., \u0026amp; Huang, S. (2022). Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals and targets: Innovative approaches and new perspectives. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1317\u0026ndash;1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01209-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReuter, T. A. (2023). SDG localization: Finding the middle ground to top-down and bottom-up approaches with the help of digital networking. \u003cem\u003eSustainability: Science, Practice and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2207372. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2207372\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosique Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, M. V., de-Prado Ruiz-Santaella, C., \u0026amp; Jordano Barbudo, M. \u0026Aacute;. (2024). Contribution of cultural heritage resources to the 2030 agenda SDGS. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2023-0090\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., \u0026amp; Drumm, E. (2023). \u003cem\u003eSustainable development report 2023: Implementing the SDG Stimulus\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahle, M., Lahoti, S. A., Lee, S.-Y., Kamiyama, C., Tan, X., Kozar, R., Saito, O., \u0026amp; Takeuchi, K. (2024). Mapping the evolving research landscape of sustainability science from 2006 to 2023: Unveiling its transformation. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1735\u0026ndash;1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01529-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScholz, R. W. (2020). Transdisciplinarity: Science for and with society in light of the university\u0026rsquo;s roles and functions. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1033\u0026ndash;1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00794-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScholz, R. W., Mieg, H. A., \u0026amp; Oswald, J. E. (2000). Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management\u0026mdash;Towards mutual learning of science and society. \u003cem\u003eWater, Air, and Soil Pollution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e123\u003c/em\u003e, 477\u0026ndash;487.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeidl, R., Brand, F. S., Stauffacher, M., Kr\u0026uuml;tli, P., Le, Q. B., Sp\u0026ouml;rri, A., Meylan, G., Moser, C., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, M. B., \u0026amp; Scholz, R. W. (2013). Science with society in the anthropocene. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e, 5\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSerafini, P. G., Moura, J. M. D., Almeida, M. R. D., \u0026amp; Rezende, J. F. D. D. (2022). Sustainable Development Goals in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e370\u003c/em\u003e, 133473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133473\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, K. B., \u0026amp; Larimer, C. (2018). \u003cem\u003eThe public policy theory primer\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSovacool, B. K. (2011). An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(6), 3832\u0026ndash;3844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStephens, J. C., Hernandez, M. E., Rom\u0026aacute;n, M., Graham, A. C., \u0026amp; Scholz, R. W. (2008). Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 317\u0026ndash;338. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSu\u0026aacute;rez-Serrano, E., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Torre, P. L., \u0026amp; Covi\u0026aacute;n-Regales, E. (2023). A business prioritisation of the sustainable development goals indicators: Building bridges between academics and practitioners in the Spanish case. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 100827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100827\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTong, V. C. (2022). Shaping sustainability priorities for higher education institutions. In \u003cem\u003eA Resilience Approach to Acceleration of Sustainable Development Goals\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 135\u0026ndash;152). Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrencher, G., Bai, X., Evans, J., McCormick, K., \u0026amp; Yarime, M. (2014). University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e, 153\u0026ndash;165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrencher, G., Nagao, M., Chen, C., Ichiki, K., Sadayoshi, T., Kinai, M., Kamitani, M., Nakamura, S., Yamauchi, A., \u0026amp; Yarime, M. (2017). Implementing sustainability co-creation between universities and society: A typology-based understanding. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 594.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrencher, G. P., Yarime, M., \u0026amp; Kharrazi, A. (2013). Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 40\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N. H., \u0026amp; Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. \u003cem\u003eScience and Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 151\u0026ndash;179. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2023). Times of Crisis, Times of Change: Science for Accelerating Transformations to Sustainable Development. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Sustainable Development Report 2023\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerdejo, \u0026Aacute;., Espinilla, M., L\u0026oacute;pez, J. L., \u0026amp; Melguizo, F. J. (2022). Assessment of sustainable development objectives in Smart Labs: Technology and sustainability at the service of society. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Cities and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e, 103559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103559\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVien, H. B. (2025). Institutions and institutional effects. In \u003cem\u003eEssential Concepts for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: An AZ Guide\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 65\u0026ndash;66). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVien, H., \u0026amp; Galik, C. S. (2024). Individual and interlinked SDGs: Higher education institutions and metro area sustainability performance. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(5), 962\u0026ndash;987. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2023-0231\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiewel, W., \u0026amp; Perry, D. C. (2015). \u003cem\u003eGlobal universities and urban development: Case studies and analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"SDG localization, living labs, university, co-production, sustainability, community engagement, polycentricity, urban sustainability","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6058894/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6058894/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAt the midpoint of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) implementation, current progress underscores the need for a more community-driven approach to co-producing and implementing SDG-focused initiatives. Beyond their traditional roles in teaching and research, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have the potential to significantly impact local SDG efforts through outreach and engagement activities. This study examines the existing literature on HEIs\u0026rsquo; contributions to SDG implementation via community engagement programs. Drawing from a thematic analysis, we propose an analytical framework to analyze and compare key characteristics, including modes, actors, SDG intensity, motivations, roles, and implementation strategies of HEIs\u0026rsquo; community engagement initiatives. This framework is supported by comparative case studies from Taiwan/China, Brazil, and the United Kingdom (UK). The study reveals that HEI-initiated SDG implementation at the local level is comprehensive, addressing multiple SDGs with diverse actors and motivations within a polycentric ecosystem. By emphasizing HEI-led local SDG initiatives, this article provides the foundation for transformative SDG implementation by universities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Fostering Local Sustainability: How Higher Education Institutions Advance SDGs through Community Engagement.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-06 14:29:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6058894/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"bd32b0f8-1615-4b4e-bbae-c6d02aa5f692","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-06T14:29:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-06 14:29:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6058894","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6058894","identity":"rs-6058894","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}