Quality of Higher Education Institutions – International Rankings, Responses to Social Challenges and the SDG

Quality of Higher Education Institutions – International Rankings, Responses to Social Challenges and the SDG | 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 Quality of Higher Education Institutions – International Rankings, Responses to Social Challenges and the SDG Nadir Barbosa Almeida, Nuno Farinha, Manuela Moreira da Silva This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7186771/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 Are Higher Education Institutions (HEI) satisfactorily answering to the challenges faced by their encompassing societies? Are their quality assessment systems conducive to a continuous improvement in fulfilling their vision and mission, and responding to their various stakeholders? What are HEIs contributions and challenges, vis-à-vis the adoption of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)? These questions reinforce discussions on SDGs’ influence and impact as key evaluation criteria for addressing social challenges in higher education. It has been common practice, when evaluating HEIs quality, to rely on their positioning according to Global University Rankings (GUR), as they seemingly provide an effective and credible assessment. However, full integration of principles required by the rankings with strategic guidelines indicated by the SDG is a topic that necessitates a more in-depth discussion in HE. We analyzed the strategies of ten HEIs that have consistently ranked in the top positions in four of the most important GURs over a ten-year period (2014-2023). The results suggest that: 1) the current challenges they predominantly engage with fall within the areas of Sustainability, DEI, Internationalization, and Outreach; 2) a paradigm shift is occurring in GURs towards better alignment with the SDG; 3) HEIs have been adjusting their quality systems to remain at the forefront of specific rankings, contributing rather slowly to the dissemination of the SDG. This study constitutes a reflection on the quality of HEI, beyond the traditional evaluation criteria established by the rankings, while simultaneously confronting them constructively in the face of societal challenges, posed from the perspective of the SDGs. SDG Quality in Higher Education Societal challenges Global University Rankings Figures Figure 1 Introduction Today's societal challenges, driven by disruptive phenomena, like advanced artificial intelligence technologies, economic crises, and recent pandemics, require higher education institutions (HEIs) to respond effectually. They play a crucial role in post-secondary education, lifelong learning, and innovation (Chankseliani & McCowan, 2021; Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI), 2020), tasked with training professionals capable of fostering resilience amid ongoing structural changes (Steele e Rickards, 2021, cit. by Kassim & Polar, 2023). There is an increasing expectation for all organizations, including HEIs, to demonstrate quality standards that not only meet individual needs but also contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) outlined in the 2030 Agenda 1 . This shift represents a departure from traditional views of higher education, which often prioritize knowledge creation and transmission. In this context, common evaluation metrics – e.g. teaching quality, stakeholder satisfaction, prestige, exclusivity – often shape public perception of quality of HEIs. However, there is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of these metrics, especially regarding HEIs’ positions in global university rankings (cf. Bautista-Puig et al., 2022; Sáez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019) , which may not align with current societal challenges or the integration of SDG into quality assessment. The operational realities of HEIs vary widely, as do the standards for evaluating their quality (Barnett, 2023), impacting their recognition and relevance in society. This paper explores the role of HEIs in implementing SDG in response to societal challenges, investigating whether the quality assessment criteria, particularly those utilized in GURs, align with these challenges. The central research question posed is: To what extent do GURs drive governance and quality in leading HEIs, and are SDG meaningfully integrated to address current societal challenges rather than sidelined by rankings-oriented priorities? Literature Review Concepts of Quality and Quality in Higher Education Institutions The term "quality" is conspicuously used, from preeminent CEOs, researchers, political leaders, and the general population. For Goetsch & Davis ( 2016) , all consumers can recognize quality, although few are able to define it. Originating from industry and commerce, quality has gradually become a widespread concern across all sectors of society. It is a concept related to both processes and outcomes, though sometimes interpreted exclusively from one perspective or the other, lacking a clear definition ( Harvey & Green, 1993) . It's multifaceted (Charantimath & Zhang, 2001 in Martin et al., 2020), linked to conformity, excellence, satisfaction, and expectations (Goetsch & Davis, 2016 ; Harvey, 2024). It involves purpose, zero defects (Crosby in Goetsch & Davis, 2016) . This study adopts a sustainability-focused view of quality, valuing diverse stakeholder perspectives and prioritising present and future customer needs, as found in Martin et al. (2020) . Quality in higher education, plays a dual role: promoting social equity and contributing to the development of a critical mass capable of transforming society. UNESCO views higher education as one of the engines of twenty-first century economic development and, simultaneously, a hub for lifelong education (Delors, 2000) . To achieve this, higher education institutions (HEIs) must prepare professionals equipped with relevant competencies and the resilience to navigate increasingly complex and dynamic environment changes (Steele e Rickards, 2021, cit. by Kassim & Polar, 2023) . This requires not only a responsive curriculum but also institutional mechanisms that ensure continuous alignment with evolving societal needs (Mokski et al., 2022) . In this context, quality management emerges as a strategic priority, essential for the relevance, competitiveness, and long-term sustainability of HEIs in a globalized and technologically-driven world (Delors, 2000; Mattos et al., 2023; Taysum, 2019). According to Martin & Stella (2006) , quality means different things to different stakeholders: academics value quality in research, students prioritize teaching quality and learning experience, and employers focus on graduates' competencies and job readiness. Consequently, quality in HEIs is often interpreted as related to the “product” of these institutions, be it students (competencies and knowledge acquired) (Weingarten et al., 2018) , or solutions derived from research implemented for the benefit of society (Huisman & Stensaker, 2022). Some associate quality with the degree of involvement of stakeholders (Calamet, 2022) or the institution’s overall vision, which is further enhanced by total quality management systems (Nasim et al., 2020; Nogueiro et al., 2021 ) and/or compliance with ISO requirements (Girmanová et al., 2022) . Others link the quality of HEIs (world-class universities) to their position in academic rankings – GUR (Torabian, 2019; Scott, 2020; Sáez et al., 2023) . Quality in higher education should be embedded in institutional culture, not imposed externally ( Hildesheim & Sonntag, 2020) . This aligns with perspectives supporting internalized quality cultures using structured tools ( Cardoso et al., 2016; Harvey & Green, 1993) . Effective systems require clear structures, responsibilities, procedures, and resource management for efficiency and sustainability. Quality assurance must reflect diverse institutional and societal contexts and cannot be universally applied without adaptation (Barnett, 2023) . Achieving meaningful quality depends on stakeholder involvement and negotiation, with clearly defined and collectively owned quality requirements. The Role of Quality Management and Evaluation Systems in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) The challenges of maintaining quality have led countries to develop legislation to regulate HEIs and enhance continuous improvement mechanisms. Quality is now a requirement for HEIs, as the quality assurance process itself elevates their excellence (Aburizaizah, 2022) . The European Union's Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (2015) emphasizes that adopting quality evaluation processes, especially external ones, allows European HEIs to demonstrate quality and increase transparency, providing a benchmark for its recognition and facilitating the mobility of students and faculty. These processes foster trust, boosting a belief in the general public’s perception that the HEI "has quality". This recognition has been overtly decisive and a central element, often highlighted in the speeches of political decision-makers, particularly in African and European HEIs (Pereira Coutinho et al., 2020) . Yet, other sources of benchmark for shaping institutional reputation and policy decisions and governance, such as traditional academic rankings, have gained a large visibility, often steering the quality debate toward narrower, more contested metrics as we’ll see next. Traditional Rankings (GUR): Characterization and Importance. Do They Serve Quality or Themselves? A commonly used method for evaluating quality in HEIs, has been through academic rankings (Altbach, 2006, cited by Sáez et al., 2023) , regarded by some as a tool for university governance (Righetti, 2019, cited by Sáez et al., 2023; Vanz et al., 2018; Wandercil et al., 2022) . Among all, the most well-known are: QS Rankings; Academic Ranking of World Universities (also known as the Shanghai Ranking or ARWU); Times Higher Education (THE); and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities. Based on key metrics, central to their mission, GURs help HEIs analyse their performance. Some metrics overlap across multiple rankings, while others are unique to a specific ranking (see Figure 1). Figure 1. SHOULD GO HERE Although each of the four international rankings analyzed has a distinct focus, they share core criteria, particularly regarding publication volume and quality – and sometimes teaching quality. Some emphasize internationalization, reflecting institutions’ global orientation. Others stand out for valuing prestigious academic awards and assessing performance per capita 2 , or takes a different approach, focusing on online content to measure visibility and open knowledge dissemination, using web-based methodologies like researcher profiles and citations. A distinct indicator relies on knowledge transfer and industry income. There’s only one ranking (THE) that measures institutional contributions to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), although this is done separately through a dedicated impact ranking, initiated in 2018. Each ranking, while methodologically distinct, provides insights into key dimensions of institutional performance within the global higher education landscape, reflecting diverse priorities and perspectives. However, rankings face criticism, for instance being based on different metrics and dimensions, which means they cannot measure the same thing, treating different realities as if they were all the same in every place (Sáez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019). The pillars on which quality rests are vague, and the criteria vary from country to country, region to region, and even from institution to institution (Barnett, 2023; Belenkuyu & Karadag, 2023). When attempts were made to "standardize" the rankings based on the Berlin Descriptors, the results were disappointing, indicating that the systems used by the rankings have issues with methodology, transparency, and acceptability (Belenkuyu & Karadag, 2023) . Another issue is their vertical (top-down) perspective; that is, they do not consider the real challenges societies currently face (UNESCO, 2022) , such as not properly considering the SDG with the necessary depth and scope. Although rankings have suffered a decline in importance as a quality assessment tool in the current legislative context of the sector, they remain highly sought after, mainly due to the marketing and differentiation they generate in the market (Sáez et al., 2023) , in an increasingly competitive higher education world (Harvey, 2008; Sáez et al., 2023) . Their presence has even grown in recent years, particularly in less-developed countries (Bautista-Puig et al., 2022) . According to Hazelkorn (in Calderón et al., 2019) , rankings specifically aim to modernize assessment systems, impacting the improvement of performance, accountability, and public visibility of HEIs. However, while they foster a convergence or realignment of academic priorities and research, they are often used to ensure compliance with standards, institutionalizing what should be protected, thereby distorting their broader and more fundamental purpose (Torabian, 2019; Weingarten et al., 2018). This leads to a “race for rankings”, where institutions aim to look good within the indicators that matter to them. In this sense, the use of traditional ranking systems by HEIs, seems to not guarantee the legitimacy of the quality standards being promoted, even though they have the means and the conditions to do so (Sáez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019) . In conclusion, rankings reveal aspects of an institution's quality by monitoring compliance with robust indicators, enhancing trustworthiness, and enabling comparative analysis among HEIs. However, these elements become secondary when the primary goal shifts to attracting and retaining students, leading HEIs to select those that best suit their interests. Rankings seem to serve as ongoing agents for prestigious HEIs, which maintain their top positions in the hierarchy, even if they are not effectively addressing contemporary societal challenges like the SDG. The “best” HEIs: a Comparative Analysis according to GUR By analyzing the top 15 positions across the four major rankings, from 2014 to 2023, we find institutions with history, prestige, economic power, networks, a strong foundation in teaching and research, and engagement and presence in their communities, through projects, as well as through employability of their graduates – resulting in a compiled list of 34 leading HEIs (Table 1). Table 1. SHOULD GO HERE Next, we’ve broken-down the HEIs, based on the criterion that they had, at least once during this period, been ranked among the top 15 in all four GURs, with the result including 10 HEIs (see Table 2), seven of which are North American and three British. Table 2. SHOULD GO HERE To gain an even clearer perspective of each institution's position in all the rankings, we calculated a final value, by adding their positions (1-15) over the 10-year period across the 4 GURs, and then dividing them by the number of years in which the HEI appeared. The lower value indicates the better position, as it is closer to n=1, the top of the comparative list. The final grid is presented in the following Table 3. Table 3. SHOULD GO HERE An analysis of the indicators and dimensions of the four Global University Rankings (GUR) reveals the strengths and weaknesses of each HEI. Harvard, Stanford, and MIT consistently rank at the top among the four rankings 3 , while Oxbridge 4 present better results in the THE ranking. Further analysis shows that Harvard excels in Webometrics (strong online presence) and Shanghai (teaching and research indicators as well as per capita performance), MIT leads in QS (reputation and graduate employability), and Oxford dominates in Times (knowledge transfer). Current societal challenges and the impact of the SDG on HEIs performance Many international organizations (e.g., EU, UNESCO, OECD, World Bank, International Association of Universities (IAU), European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education), authors, and researchers, have spoken of the most important challenges in higher education, and virtually all of them make impactful considerations regarding the SDG. The literature consulted addresses four major challenges of current societies and their repercussions on the governance of HEIs as: a) the impact of actions aimed at sustainability (financial, environmental, social, and cultural) (Costa, 2022; HESI, 2020; Yáñez et al., 2018) ; b) actions related to DEI 5 (diversity, equality, inclusion) (HESI, 2020; UNESCO, 2022) ; c) engagement with the community (employability, knowledge transfer, and connection to industry) (HESI, 2020; Nogueiro et al., 2021; Yáñez et al., 2018) ; and d) internationalization (Aburizaizah, 2022) . Table 5 below presents a hypothetical cross-association between these four challenges and the 17 SDG. Table 4. SHOULD GO HERE UNESCO, in its 2022 report, “Knowledge-driven actions: Transforming Higher Education for Global Sustainability”, suggests: “the need to move towards inter- and trans- disciplinarity in education and research; the imperative need for institutions to become open, fostering epistemic dialogue and integrating other ways of knowing; and the demand for a much stronger presence in society in general through proactive outreach activities and partnering with other societal actors, in order to build awareness of ecological deterioration and the SDGs in general, and to influence policy”. These priorities align with Filho (2011) , who affirmed that HEIs fulfil their educational role when they actively promote sustainable development in its various dimensions. Earlier, Kent (1996) warned of a global expansion of HEIs without sufficient diversification of programs, faded to failing to meet basic quality standards or deliver innovations with social relevance. He highlighted major challenges identified by the World Bank, including quality deficits, inefficiency, high dropout rates, program duplication, and unequal access. These persistent concerns underscore the need for changes (Howlett et al., 2016a) , as HEIs generally maintain a traditional view of their role in promoting sustainability (Howlett et al., 2016b; Mokski et al., 2022) , often operating in a "silo" format (Aktas, 2015). Additionally, cooperation among HEIs to share knowledge and experiences is often limited (Berchin et al., 2021a), resulting in a slower-than-necessary implementation of sustainability initiatives (Mokski et al., 2022) . Yet, data seem to indicate that the analyzed HEIs are aware of SDG-related practices and incorporate them into their internal organization and quality management systems, leading to higher positions in traditional GURs, while still promoting the SDG. However, as seen in the literature, they adopt the SDG differently (Berchin et al., 2021b; Mokski et al., 2022) sometimes with a sense of urgency (Allen & Malekpour, 2023) . Table 4 aims at showing how the HEIs that rank best at the chosen GURs tackle the challenges mentioned. Table 5. SHOULD GO HERE The GUR and the SDG – a path to complementarity? Contemporary societies face numerous challenges linked to the 17 SDG, leading to expectations that higher education institutions (HEIs) will address, at least some of, these issues. The argument that the GURs are sufficiently satisfactory indicators to determine whether a particular HEI effectively responds to societal challenges is not plausible. Several hypotheses explain the fallibility of global university rankings (GURs). First, they rely on diverse and often incompatible measurement criteria, making meaningful comparisons difficult. Second, they impose standardized parameters that overlook the varied realities of institutions across regions and contexts. Third, they tend to incentivize a competitive “arms race” among HEIs, encouraging self-promotion and alignment with ranking metrics rather than genuine societal engagement or alignment with the full scope of the Sustainable Development Goals. In contrast to traditional rankings, new sustainability rankings assess how HEIs implement sustainable social, environmental, and financial practices, focusing on carbon footprint, green infrastructure, waste, water, financial management, equity, and poverty reduction in the communities. The UI Green Metric is a pioneering ranking system that highlights the role of higher education in advancing sustainable development by assessing institutions’ sustainability practices and alignment with the SDG. It uses 39 indicators, six criteria 6 , related to climate change and began producing its ranking of the most sustainable HEIs in 2010, and using SDG in 2018. Currently, it includes 1,183 HEIs from 84 countries. More recently, the THE Impact Ranking, which released its first report in 2019, has grown to include 1,705 HEIs from 115 countries and regions in its fifth report (2023). It claims to be the only ranking that evaluates HEIs with the SDG as a backdrop and divides its evaluation into four main criteria 7 . Another ranking, the QS Sustainability Ranking, has been in existence since 2022 and has already published two reports for the years 2023 and 2024. In its first edition, the assessments were based on the analysis of two criteria and eight indicators 8 , involving 700 HEIs. To understand the differences and similarities between academic and sustainability rankings, we analyzed the 2023 data, as earlier data is limited. In 2023, the top 15 positions in the sustainability rankings included 43 HEIs from 14 countries. In contrast, when comparing the data for the same positions, only two HEIs – University of Pennsylvania and Yale University – appeared in both rankings. Table 6. SHOULD GO HERE HEIs seem to becoming more aware of modern societal challenges and adopting governance policies and quality evaluation systems that prioritize the SDG and stakeholders’ engagement, which seems to indicate a shift in paradigm. However, critics argue that these rankings merely add to the existing classification market and may not effectively promote the SDG without significant changes (Staub, 2019; Torabian, 2019). These themes will be explored in subsequent chapters. Analytical Framework and Propositions The implementation of quality management systems in higher education, based on assessable and reliable indicators, is deemed an essential governance measure to ensure education quality. However, the literature reveals contrasting interpretations: approaches and assumptions differ and remain neither fully clear nor universally accepted. In this context, clarifying the various perspectives on HEI quality is crucial to enable an empirical analysis that contributes meaningfully to this important issue. To this end, we propose a systematic structure of the main topics discussed, framed as assumptions that reflect key theoretical positions in the field. Based on the preceding discussion, we propose eight assumptions. These form the conceptual framework of the literature review and serve as an exploratory synthesis to guide the empirical phase. The first topic concerns the meaning of “quality” in an organizational context. From the literature (e.g., Goetsch & Davis, 2016; J. Martin et al., 2020; Santos et al., 2021) , it is clear that reflection in this domain must consider growing societal challenges and question traditional definitions. Therefore: Proposition 1: Quality in organizations should be defined broadly, integrating not only compliance with specific requirements to ensure the satisfaction of those who directly use their products and services but also incorporating the foundations of sustainable development, aligned with surpassing societal expectations. Regarding HEI quality, the literature indicates it is complex. While essential to ensuring excellence, credibility, and survival (Nasim et al., 2020; Sáez et al., 2023), the diversity of stakeholders and institutional realities (Barnett, 2023) makes universal solutions difficult. Defining quality becomes a negotiated process involving internal and external evaluations with active stakeholder participation. Thus: Proposition 2: Quality in HEIs is always the result of the convergence of positions from various stakeholders, guided by specific legislation, yet insufficiently comprehensive or inclusive to safeguard the specificities of each actor, entity, or region, especially given society’s growing challenges and expectations. The mission and vision represent the face HEIs present to the world, differentiating each and linking them to their operational context. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot apply across institutions, as quality must exceed procedural formalism. It is a dynamic, negotiated process where identity, expectations, and strategic goals shape excellence and sustainability: Proposition 3: Quality in HEIs is not a mechanical process of mere organizational adaptation and formalization. It involves negotiated exchanges of expectations and priorities (Mission and Vision) that define each institution. While HEIs face the various challenges that quality imposes on their governance, there is also a parallel rise in regulatory frameworks aimed at ensuring their accountability (Romanowski & Karkouti, 2024) and entities have emerged to provide robust frameworks. When properly applied, these frameworks seemingly offer institutions a clearer understanding and projection of their quality level. Academic rankings stem from this dynamic, providing visibility and strategic positioning. However, they have been subject to critique (e.g., Harvey, 2008; Sáez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019). Rankings use indicators to assess quality and build trust, but their diversity undermines a shared understanding and encourages selective use as marketing tools. HEIs often invest in indicators that enhance their position in preferred rankings. This practice reinforces ranking-driven indicators, weakens their legitimacy, and distances HEIs from real societal concerns. Hence: Proposition 4: Global University Rankings are internationally recognized as tools for assessing HEI performance and quality. However, questions arise about whether their use perpetuates prescribed descriptors, continuously reconstructing what benefits each stakeholder while failing to clearly and unequivocally address societal challenges. The challenges faced by contemporary society are so complex and far-reaching that they naturally intersect with the issue of quality, with significant repercussions for HEI governance. Increasingly, attention has focused on principles like equality, justice, and sustainability. SDG represent the operationalization of these principles. The literature suggests that HEIs are responding, especially in areas such as sustainability, equity, internationalization, and community engagement. Sector-specific rankings reflect this inclusion and position institutions accordingly. However, these efforts are not yet sufficient to conclude that societal challenges are being fully addressed (Berchin et al., 2021a; Mokski et al., 2022). Furthermore, HEIs traditionally recognized as top-tier in academic rankings occupy secondary positions or are even absent from such “sustainability” rankings. Consequently: Proposition 5: Not all current societal challenges are addressed or incorporated into GURs, leaving no guarantees that the HEIs ranked highest – presumably of higher quality – adequately address these challenges, particularly the implementation of the SDG. While HEIs increasingly recognize the need to consider indicators beyond traditional rankings, change has been slow, especially among top-ranked institutions. Reasons include financial costs and the relative novelty of these concerns within ranking systems, which does not yet seem to have gained traction. Some authors, on the other hand, view the creation of this additional type of ranking yet another manoeuvre by its promoters to introduce a new “product” that allows HEIs to add another element to their portfolio of marketing strategies. Thus: Proposition 6: The paradigm shift towards the SDG in HEI quality evaluation systems has been gradual and slow. Sustainability rankings are, in some cases, perceived as “more of the same” (Staub, 2019; Torabian, 2019), reflecting the speed and interests of HEIs better positioned in traditional GURs. It can be argued that HEIs must adopt a contextualized approach that balances global sustainability imperatives and the SDG, with institutional strengths, ensuring meaningful and lasting contributions to societal challenges. Integrating the SDG should not compromise autonomy or critical thought but must be acknowledged as central to modern HEIs relevance, to be recognized as being “of quality”. Therefore: Proposition 7: There is no alternative to the SDG in HEI governance. All HEIs must urgently adjust their quality policies to this reality, to respond effectively to societal challenges. Despite growing concern over HEIs’ societal role and the recognized importance of including the SDG in their governance models, reality points to a conflict between alternatives. While national frameworks support quality, the dominance of rankings of sustainability (SDG) often conflict rather than complement GUR. Hence, the final assumption sums up: Proposition 8: In HEI governance and in the face of societal challenges, quality encounters both conflict and complementarity arising from the hypothetical simultaneous implementation of GURs and SDG. Based on the above assumptions, the next section of this paper describes the research methodology employed in the study. Methodology Quality in HEIs requires a sustainability-based approach that balances stakeholder perspectives, rankings, and regulations while addressing societal challenges. However, rankings often prioritize marketing over inclusivity and SDG, limiting their ability to assess real impact. As a result, top-ranked HEIs may score poorly on sustainability. Progress toward SDG-focused evaluations remains slow due to conflicts with academic rankings. Therefore, HEI governance must urgently prioritize the SDG to meet societal expectations and respond effectively to emerging challenges. The various topics addressed here are sensitive, controversial, and subject to interpretations that do not always converge. This leads us to propose a research strategy that provides genuine and flexible access to interpretative insights, held by participants in the field of study, without the objective of the empirical study becoming a generalization of the data. To achieve this, we adopted an exploratory-descriptive logic (Fortin & Salgueiro, 2009) , grounded in an interpretative epistemological orientation (Leavy, 2020; Saunders et al., 2019) , with the aim of extracting the meaning individuals attribute to the phenomena they engage with, according to their role in the regulatory system of HEIs. This methodological choice focuses on the possibility of understanding a given social reality, which should be interpreted by the internationally recognized experts in higher education who live and experience such social phenomena. The method used for collecting qualitative data was the semi-structured interview (Leavy, 2020). The topics or propositions outlined were expanded into questions formulated and re-formulated during the interaction between the interviewee and the interviewer, focusing on questions about beliefs and knowledge, always directed towards the specificity of the topic under discussion (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The interviews were requested via email and conducted online. Four seasoned professors from Portugal and Spain were selected for interview, some of them with high responsibilities within quality and accreditation systems in their countries. A summary of our work was sent, without disclosing the propositions discussed earlier. The interviews were recorded to ensure accurate and detailed data, preserving authenticity 9 . Interviews complemented our theoretical analysis, offering diverse perspectives through open-ended dialogue and observations, enabling richer, more precise empirical interpretation of key topics. Procedures followed the principles of Declaration of Helsinki. The article presents an exploratory nature, with an analytical, descriptive, and comparative perspective, referencing secondary sources of information (Sáez et al., 2023) such as international declarations on SDG, and global perspectives of organizations such as the EU, UNESCO, OECD, World Bank, and the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. We also analyzed content found on the websites of the four GURs considered the most relevant and comprehensive. According to Creswell (2009), qualitative research is interpretive, involving description of individuals and/or settings, thematic analysis, and drawing of conclusions. It includes personal and theoretical insights, lessons learned, and new questions. Our framework, based on raised propositions, aimed to clarify the central research question. A final note on the use of generative AI in this paper: the authors made use of ChatGPT (version 4.0) as a translation tool and to verify the accuracy and APA 7th edition compliance of all cited sources in references. Results and Findings All interviewees acknowledge the complexity of the concept of quality and the need for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to respond to stakeholders' expectations, which is Proposition 1 (P1). There is agreement on the importance of formal evaluation systems, although doubts remain regarding their applicability. Some interviewees stress the need for clear and measurable criteria, as quality is a complex and subjective concept, shaped by stakeholders. The success of quality assurance depends on meeting stakeholder expectations and aligning with each institution’s specific measurement and control systems to meet sustainable development. The scientific relevance of this dimension lies in the fact that, despite the multiple understandings, quality cannot be reduced to formal and objective conditions alone, as these enable a more transparent and credible reading of institutional performance. However, given its subjectivity, quality must be adjusted to institutional reality and available resources in order to foster credibility and visibility. Divergences are noted in terms of the extent of universities' responsibilities and the tension between institutional mission and societal expectations. Autonomy emerges as a critical variable in the context of social challenges, including sustainable development. HEI leadership is deemed preferable to reactivity in response to external demands, although such demands do not always align with existing quality frameworks. The scientific relevance of this issue lies in the need for a transversal normative framework, accepted by all stakeholders, that promotes socially expected practices and ensures autonomy, mission, and the necessary resources. It is thus concluded that a comprehensive concept of quality remains hypothetical, opening the way for reflection on the role of universities in the face of societal demands, with a view to fostering more proactive, competitive, and participatory institutional leadership. Based on the results from Proposition 2 (P2), while quality in higher education institutions (HEIs) is assumed to require convergence among stakeholder perspectives, interviewees stress a limited responsiveness to local specificities and rising societal challenges. They highlight the role of national accreditation agencies in ensuring minimum quality standards, adding that addressing socio-economic challenges necessitates adequate funding, and underscore the reactive posture of universities to external pressures. Respondents agree HEIs operate in complex ecosystems shaped by socio-economic and contextual forces, where quality systems, though essential, remain flawed. Despite facing shared challenges, institutions vary in autonomy, responsiveness, and quality system efficacy – reflecting contrasting priorities, as supported by the literature (e.g., Barnett, 2023; Calamet, 2022) . The findings affirm that quality should be grounded in shared stakeholder understanding, aligned with institutional missions and resources. Ultimately, some argue (e.g., Calamet, 2022) , the central question is what kind of quality is being pursued ? Supporting the previous argument, Proposition 3 (P3) musters broad agreement that quality should reflect each institution’s identity and objectives, rather than being imposed through overly standardized metrics. Interviewees acknowledge the diversity within the higher education sector, reinforcing the need for alignment between institutional missions and both internal and external evaluation systems. Thus, quality systems must allow flexibility in defining evaluation criteria, enabling HEIs to express their unique identities through their mission, vision, strategy, and resource base. Rather than aiming for uniform criteria, a balanced approach is needed – one that respects institutional autonomy and strategic goals, while remaining responsive to both internal and external economic pressures (Mokski et al., 2022) . Proposition 4 (P4) introduces the critical debate surrounding global university rankings, widely adopted by many HEIs as tools for performance and quality assessment. However, doubts arise whether their appeal reflects genuine evaluation or simply reshaping priorities to match ranking descriptors. Interviewees argue that rankings fail to capture the diversity and complexity of HEIs and question the transparency of ranking criteria, suggesting the influence of hidden agendas, viewing rankings as reflective of elite interests and power structures. All interviewees express reservations about the perceived credibility of GURs, noting their tendency to oversimplify and the underlying financial, political, and marketing motivations. This critique is academically significant, revealing a gap between the public visibility conferred by rankings and the more sceptical perceptions held by key stakeholders. In line with critical literature, rankings are portrayed as controversial tools with limited merit and opaque criteria, often sustained by significant financial investment. A more inclusive evaluative model, such as U-Multirank, is therefore preferred. Proposition 5 (P5) highlights that Global University Rankings do not necessarily reflect whether highly ranked institutions effectively address contemporary societal challenges, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals. This concern is echoed by most interviewees, who agree that GURs and SDG represent distinct and often incompatible evaluation logics: rankings reinforce traditional metrics of excellence, whereas the SDG foreground ethical and societal values. Some link research performance to funding, noting that resource availability shapes priorities. Others stress the misalignment between SDG and GUR, though acknowledging the prestige and hard work of top institutions. This aligns with critical perspectives in the literature (e.g., Mokski et al. 2022) . The SDG set objectives that go beyond conventional quality metrics and remain poorly integrated into HEI funding or assessment models. According to the interviewees, while GUR offer limited guidance on societal responsiveness, an institution engaging with local and global challenges may, despite not topping global rankings, make a meaningful contribution to a just, sustainable, and responsible future. Proposition 6 (P6) argues that any transition by HEI in response to contemporary social challenges – such as those represented by the SDG – will necessarily be gradual, slow (Mokski et al. 2022), and “more-of-the-same” (Staub, 2019; Torabian, 2019). Interviewees argued that the universality of the SDG, which encompass diverse local realities, cannot be reduced to the global, often standardized logic of rankings. Still, there's consensus on the need for institutions to engage progressively with global concerns like the SDG. However, this transition must respect the unique missions and constraints of each HEI. The interviews reveal a tension between adapting to global pressures and maintaining institutional integrity, particularly in highly competitive academic environments. This complexity underscores the need for a transformation of ranking systems themselves, aligning them not only with academic excellence but also with social relevance and global responsibility. Proposition 7 (P7) highlights the strategic relevance of the SDG in the governance of HEIs, urging rapid adjustments to quality policies to address societal challenges. However, some view this expectation as utopian, cautioning that overburdening universities with the SDG agenda may divert them from their core academic mission. In contrast, others perceive the SDG as strategic opportunities, provided their integration aligns with institutional missions and existing quality systems, preparing individuals to tackle societal issues. Despite varied views, most agree HEIs should selectively engage with SDG, aligned with their identity. Interviewees express cautious openness to SDG integration, coupled with concern about preserving autonomy and relevance. Echoing Chankseliani & McCowan (2021), they argue for a flexible, context-sensitive approach that empowers institutions to lead societal change, rather than passively follow global trends. Ultimately, the proposition raises a critical question: what is the actual role of higher education in advancing the SDG – an issue still subject to significant debate. Proposition 8 (P8) reinforces the prior discussion by highlighting the complex governance challenges faced by HEIs in reconciling Global University Rankings with the Sustainable Development Goals. While some see potential alignment between some ranking criteria and institutional priorities, others call for a fundamental revision of evaluation metrics, and advocate for a more SDG-focused strategic approach. Despite varying perspectives, interviewees acknowledge the growing relevance of the SDG in higher education and support adapting current systems to strike a balance between innovation and established practices. This requires recognising the tension between global metrics and local contexts. As noted by Mokski et al. (2022) , moving toward a more sustainable and inclusive model demands reconfiguring quality systems. Yet integration is complex, as SDG add evaluative layers shaped by economic, social, and cultural factors. Conflicting interpretations of urgent global challenges – such as climate action (SDG 13), responsible consumption (SDG 12), gender equality (SDG 5), and equitable access to quality education (SDG 4) – further complicate alignment. Concerns also arise over institutions becoming "degree mills" and neglecting their social missions. While the complementarity of QMS, GUR, and SDGs holds promise, it is also fraught with tensions that demand critical reflection and contextual sensitivity. In the final topic, interviewees offer complementary perspectives on what quality in higher education institutions (HEIs) means to them. Some advocate for an integrated approach, arguing that quality derives from a composite indicator encompassing education, research, external relations, internal environment, and equity – dimensions that are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Others emphasize the role of student quality, suggesting that the excellence of an institution is largely determined by the profile and potential of the students it attracts, or faculty quality, viewing it as the primary evaluation criterion, measured through student feedback, graduate career outcomes, and research productivity. Despite emphasizing different aspects, all interviewees converge on the importance of fostering a strong quality culture within HEIs, shaped by multiple and context-specific references. The coexistence of diverse criteria reflect the multiple meanings of quality. While the intentionality behind existing standards in the sector remains open to debate, there is consensus on the interdependence between teaching, research, external engagement, and institutional factors as central to a more effective understanding of quality – an argument supported in the literature (e.g., Steele & Rickards, 2021, cited by Kassim & Polar, 2023). Table 7. SHOULD GO HERE Conclusion Quality in higher education is a complex concept, subject to subjective interpretation and in constant evolution. In the context of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), it goes beyond traditional models centered on technical excellence and compliance, requiring more comprehensive approaches aligned with contemporary social challenges. The governance of HEIs continues to be strongly conditioned by quality assurance instruments, such as national accreditation systems and global rankings. However, doubts persist regarding the capacity of these frameworks to effectively respond to the demands imposed by the SDG, particularly in the areas of Sustainability, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Internationalization, and Community Engagement. While GURs continue to shape institutional reputation and strategy, evidence suggests that the best-performing HEIs in these rankings could contribute more to the aforementioned challenges. Rankings tend to prioritize criteria related to influence and prestige, reinforcing an internal market logic among the most competitive HEIs, which perpetuates inequalities and limits the diversity of responses to social needs. Some institutions attempt to complement GURs with sustainable practices; however, such integration remains uneven and slow, without significantly altering the dominant paradigm. The implementation of more inclusive quality systems requires an increased degree of formalization and regulation, with carefully selected criteria adapted to institutional specificities and autonomy. It is less about imposing universal solutions, but ensuring academic excellence coexists with social responsibility, respecting each HEI’s mission, which legitimizes strategies adopted. Any attempt to integrate the SDG into HE evaluation systems requires flexibility, context, and resource safeguarding. Instead of conceiving GURs and SDG as opposites, an integrated and holistic vision is proposed, capable of reconciling international recognition with local commitment. The future of quality in higher education will depend on the ability of HEIs to balance academic prestige with social relevance, becoming key actors in sustainable, inclusive, and participatory development. In this process, the culture of quality must remain dynamic, critical, and adaptable, reflecting the plurality of missions and contexts that characterize the sector. Declarations All participants in the study provided their informed consent to participate. The authors report there are no competing interests to declare . References Aburizaizah, S. (2022). The role of quality assurance in Saudi higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3 , 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100127 Aktas, C. (2015). Reflections on interdisciplinary sustainability research with undergraduate students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16 , 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2013-0153 Allen, C., & Malekpour, S. (2023). Unlocking and accelerating transformations to the SDGs: A review of existing knowledge. Sustainability Science, 18 (4), 1939–1960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01342-z Barnett, R. (2023). Only connect: Designing university futures. Quality in Higher Education, 29 (1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2022.2100627 Bautista-Puig, N., Orduña-Malea, E., & Perez-Esparrells, C. (2022). Enhancing sustainable development goals or promoting universities? An analysis of the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23 (8), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0309 Belenkuyu, C., & Karadag, E. (2023). Defining standards for rankings: An investigation of global university rankings according to the Berlin Principles. European Journal of Education, 58 (3), 510–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12566 Berchin, I. I., de Aguiar Dutra, A. R., & Guerra, J. B. S. O. de A. (2021). How do higher education institutions promote sustainable development? A literature review. Sustainable Development, 29 (6), 1204–1222. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2219 Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research method . https://doi.org/10.1093/hebz/9780198869443.001.0001 Calamet, F. G. A. (2022). An extensive literature review on the predominant conceptualizations of quality in higher education and its main components. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22 (7). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v22i7.5280 Calderón, A., Wandercil, M., & Martins, E. (2019). Rankings académicos e governança universitária no espaço do ensino superior de língua portuguesa: Angola, Cabo Verde, Macau, Moçambique, Portugal e Brasil. Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Why is quality in higher education not achieved? The view of academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41 (6), 950–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1052775 Chankseliani, M., & McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the Sustainable Development Goals. Higher Education, 81 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00652-w Costa, D. de M. (2022). Canadian higher education system: Evaluation of the HEQCO Agency for the development of education in the province of Ontario. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, 30 . Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Delors, J. (2000). Educação: Um tesouro a descobrir: Relatório para a UNESCO da Comissão Internacional sobre Educação para o Século XXI . Cortez. Filho, W. L. (2011). About the role of universities and their contribution to sustainable development. Higher Education Policy, 24 . https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.16 Fortin, M.-F., & Salgueiro. (2009). O processo de investigação: Da concepção à realização . Lusociência. Girmanová, L., Šolc, M., Blaško, P., & Petrík, J. (2022). Quality management system in education: Application of quality management models in educational organization – Case study from the Slovak Republic. Standards, 2 , 460–473. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards2040031 Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. (2016). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (14th ed.). Pearson Education. Harvey, L. (2024). Extended editorial: Defining quality thirty years on: Quality, standards, assurance, culture and epistemology. Quality in Higher Education, 30 (2), 145–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2024.2355026 Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18 (1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102 Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI). (2020). Assessments of higher education’s progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals . Hildesheim, C., & Sonntag, K. (2020). The Quality Culture Inventory: A comprehensive approach towards measuring quality culture in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (4), 892–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672639 Howlett, C., Ferreira, J.-A., & Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17 . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102 Huisman, J., & Stensaker, B. (2022). Performance governance and management in higher education revisited: International developments and perspectives. Quality in Higher Education, 28 (1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1951457 Kassim, H.-S., & Polar, P. (2023). Measuring the impact of universities on the Sustainable Development Goals . [Manuscrito não publicado ou documento não identificado em fonte académica]. Kent, R. (1996). The World Bank and UNESCO on higher education. International Higher Education, 4 , 20–22. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.1996.4.6200 Leavy, P. (Ed.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.001.0001 Harvey, L. (Ed.). (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education, 14 (3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802507711 Martin, J., Elg, M., & Gremyr, I. (2020). The many meanings of quality: Towards a definition in support of sustainable operations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1844564 Martin, M., & Stella, A. (2006). Making basic choices for external quality assurance systems . International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) / UNESCO. Mattos, L. K. de, Flach, L., Costa, A. M., & Moré, R. P. O. (2023). Effectiveness and sustainability indicators in higher education management. Sustainability, 15 (1), Article 10298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010298 Mokski, E., Filho, W., Sehnem, S., & Andrade Guerra, J. B. (2022). Education for sustainable development in higher education institutions: An approach for effective interdisciplinarity. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24 (1), Article 0306. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0306 Nasim, K., Sikander, A., & Tian, X. (2020). Twenty years of research on total quality management in higher education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education Quarterly, 74 (1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12227 Nogueiro, T., Saraiva, M., & Jorge, F. (2021). Total quality management and social responsibility: An approach through their synergies in higher education institutions. In A. Rocha, C. Ferrás, & M. P. Cota (Eds.), Trends and innovations in information systems and technologies (Vol. 2, pp. 311–321). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5063-5_26 Pereira Coutinho, F., Carapeto, M., & Oliveira, E. (2020). Educação de qualidade e desenvolvimento na Lusofonia . [Informação editorial em falta — incluir editora ou entidade publicadora, se possível]. Romanowski, M. H., & Karkouti, I. M. (2024). United States accreditation in higher education: Does it dilute academic freedom? Quality in Higher Education, 30 (1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2022.2127165 Sáez, W., Ganga, F., Calderón, A., & Wandercil, M. (2023). ¿Universidades de clase mundial? Las universidades chilenas en los rankings académicos internacionales. Revista Meta: Avaliação, 15 (46), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.22347/2175-2753v15i46.3892 Santos, G., Sá, J. C., Félix, M. J., Barreto, L., Carvalho, F., Doiro, M., Zgodavová, K., & Stefanović, M. (2021). New needed quality management skills for quality managers 4.0. Sustainability, 13 (11), Article 6149. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116149 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson Deutschland. https://elibrary.pearson.de/book/99.150005/9781292208794 Scott, P. (2020). Governance of higher education. In M. Trowler (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of the sociology of higher education (pp. 654–659). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4135/978152914395.n246 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (3rd ed.). ENQA. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf Staub, D. (2019). ‘Another accreditation? What’s the point?’ Effective planning and implementation for specialised accreditation. Quality in Higher Education, 25 (2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1634342 Taysum, A. (2019). Groundwork case study of universities’ building capacity for education, inclusion and philosophies of trust through doctoral study: The literature and methodologies. In A. Taysum (Ed.), Education policy as a roadmap for achieving the sustainable development goals (pp. 141–169). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-297-820191009 Torabian, J. E. (2019). Revisiting global university rankings and their indicators in the age of sustainable development. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 12 (1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1089/sus.2018.0037 UNESCO Global Independent Expert Group on the Universities and the 2030 Agenda. (2022). Knowledge-driven actions: Transforming higher education for global sustainability . UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381278 UNESCO, Right to Education Initiative (UK). (2022). Right to higher education: Unpacking the international normative framework in light of current trends and challenges . UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000382764 Vanz, S., Pandiella, A., Lascurain, M., & Casado, E. (2018). Rankings universitários internacionais e o desafio para as universidades brasileiras. Encontros Bibli: Revista Eletrônica de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, 23 (53), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2018v23n53p39 Wächter, B., Kelo, M., Lam, Q., Jost, C., & Kottowski, S. (2015). Quality indicators: A critical assessment . European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). [Link ausente – incluir se disponível] Wandercil, M., Calderón, A. I., & Ganga-Contreras, F. (2022). Os rankings acadêmicos: Implicações na governança universitária das universidades católicas brasileiras. Revista Internacional de Educação Superior – RIESup, 9 (00), e024036. https://doi.org/10.20396/riesup.v9i00.8658273 Weingarten, H. P., Hicks, M., & Kaufman, A. (Eds.). (2018). International perspectives . McGill-Queen’s University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8bt1jw Yáñez, S., Uruburu, Á., Moreno, A., & Lumbreras, J. (2018). The sustainability report as an essential tool for the holistic and strategic vision of higher education institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207 , 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.171 Footnotes Mobilized by 193 UN Member States, this commitment highlights the need to align global sustainability strategies with local actions, raising awareness among stakeholders about addressing major environmental threats and necessary adaptations. The weighted scores of five indicators: quality of education / faculty (or number of students / number of staff members receiving awards and medals) / highly cited researchers in 21 broad research categories / and research output based on 2 top publications: (articles published in Nature and Science or papers indexed in the Science Citation Index-expanded and the Social Science Citation Index) per academic staff. The lowest positions of these HEIs were: MIT ranked 6th in 2015 in the Times, Stanford ranked 7th in 2014/15 in the QS, and Harvard ranked 7th in 2020 in the Times. Oxford and Cambridge Meanwhile, we see growing changes in the US at public universities, since January 2023, as a result of legislation, orders, or other actions at the state level that restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, as demonstrated by The Chronicle report, that analyzed about 200 HEIs in 30 states. (source: https://www.chronicle.com/article/tracking-higher-eds-dismantling-of-dei?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_11086095_nl_Academe-Today_date_20240917&sra=true ). Setting & Infrastructure, Energy & Climate Change, Waste, Water, Transportation, Education & Research. Research, Stewardship, Outreach and Teaching. Environmental sustainability measures – sustainable institutions, education and research – and social impact measures, which includes equality, knowledge exchange, educational impact, employability and opportunities, and quality of life. Recorded interviews capture tone and context, enhancing authenticity and enabling repeated analysis. They also provide verifiable evidence, strengthening data interpretation, research credibility, and support for conclusions. Tables Tables 1 to 7 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Table.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-7186771","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":489161053,"identity":"11353b9e-9bb4-447c-af2e-58b4565271e4","order_by":0,"name":"Nadir Barbosa Almeida","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6140-9131","institution":"ISCEE","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nadir","middleName":"Barbosa","lastName":"Almeida","suffix":""},{"id":489161054,"identity":"78eb0166-6761-409a-bf52-f940c74531a9","order_by":1,"name":"Nuno Farinha","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0277-9065","institution":"IPAM","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nuno","middleName":"","lastName":"Farinha","suffix":""},{"id":489161055,"identity":"619a818a-cb21-4961-b843-9c4fc8781832","order_by":2,"name":"Manuela Moreira da Silva","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3331-8280","institution":"University of Algarve","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Manuela","middleName":"Moreira da","lastName":"Silva","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-22 11:56:45","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-7186771/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7186771/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87556514,"identity":"8393be4e-ca62-430f-a54d-b11bfc745303","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-25 07:17:13","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":218605,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntersection of dimensions and indicators of the 4 GUR\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7186771/v1/6dbcf6e2a1dd8b8a2772a942.png"},{"id":87557332,"identity":"55b20987-fcca-44b1-912b-6c2250a1433a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-25 07:33:14","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":870262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7186771/v1/ac78c1b6-8dae-4b98-a46e-de9bbf6f1e12.pdf"},{"id":87557199,"identity":"bc14b53c-4eac-460e-b57b-e418b3dc15cd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-25 07:25:13","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":942459,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7186771/v1/ed4d46d1c0181283065e4ca9.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eQuality of Higher Education Institutions – International Rankings, Responses to Social Challenges and the SDG\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eToday\u0026apos;s societal challenges, driven by disruptive phenomena, like advanced artificial intelligence technologies, economic crises, and recent pandemics, require higher education institutions (HEIs) to respond effectually. They play a crucial role in post-secondary education, lifelong learning, and innovation\u0026nbsp;(Chankseliani \u0026amp; McCowan, 2021; Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI), 2020), tasked with training professionals capable of fostering resilience amid ongoing structural changes (Steele e Rickards, 2021, cit. by Kassim \u0026amp; Polar, 2023). There is an increasing expectation for all organizations, including HEIs, to demonstrate quality standards that not only meet individual needs but also contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) outlined in the 2030 Agenda\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. This shift represents a departure from traditional views of higher education, which often prioritize knowledge creation and transmission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this context, common evaluation metrics \u0026ndash; e.g. teaching quality, stakeholder satisfaction, prestige, exclusivity \u0026ndash; often shape public perception of quality of HEIs. However, there is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of these metrics, especially regarding HEIs\u0026rsquo; positions in global university rankings \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(cf. Bautista-Puig et al., 2022; S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019)\u003c/span\u003e, which may not align with current societal challenges or the integration of SDG into quality assessment. The operational realities of HEIs vary widely, as do the standards for evaluating their quality (Barnett, 2023), impacting their recognition and relevance in society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper explores the role of HEIs in implementing SDG in response to societal challenges, investigating whether the quality assessment criteria, particularly those utilized in GURs, align with these challenges. The central research question posed is: To what extent do GURs drive governance and quality in leading HEIs, and are SDG meaningfully integrated to address current societal challenges rather than sidelined by rankings-oriented priorities?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003ch2\u003eConcepts of Quality and Quality in Higher Education Institutions \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe term \u0026quot;quality\u0026quot; is conspicuously used, from preeminent CEOs, researchers, political leaders, and the general population. For Goetsch \u0026amp; Davis \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003e2016)\u003c/span\u003e, all consumers can recognize quality, although few are able to define it. Originating from industry and commerce, quality has gradually become a widespread concern across all sectors of society. It is a concept related to both processes and outcomes, though sometimes interpreted exclusively from one perspective or the other, lacking a clear definition (\u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003eHarvey \u0026amp; Green, 1993)\u003c/span\u003e. It\u0026apos;s multifaceted (Charantimath \u0026amp; Zhang, 2001 \u003cem\u003ein\u003c/em\u003e Martin et al., 2020), linked to conformity, excellence, satisfaction, and expectations \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003e(Goetsch \u0026amp; Davis, 2016\u003c/span\u003e; Harvey, 2024). It involves purpose, zero defects (Crosby in \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003eGoetsch \u0026amp; Davis, 2016)\u003c/span\u003e. This study adopts a sustainability-focused view of quality, valuing diverse stakeholder perspectives and prioritising present and future customer needs, as found in \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eMartin et al. (2020)\u003c/span\u003e. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuality in higher education, plays a dual role: promoting social equity and contributing to the development of a critical mass capable of transforming society. UNESCO views higher education as one of the engines of twenty-first century economic development and, simultaneously, a hub for lifelong education \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Delors, 2000)\u003c/span\u003e. To achieve this, higher education institutions (HEIs) must prepare professionals equipped with relevant competencies and the resilience to navigate increasingly complex and dynamic environment changes (Steele e Rickards, 2021, cit. by \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003eKassim \u0026amp; Polar, 2023)\u003c/span\u003e. This requires not only a responsive curriculum but also institutional mechanisms that ensure continuous alignment with evolving societal needs \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Mokski et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e. In this context, quality management emerges as a strategic priority, essential for the relevance, competitiveness, and long-term sustainability of HEIs in a globalized and technologically-driven world (Delors, 2000; Mattos et al., 2023; Taysum, 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003eMartin \u0026amp; Stella (2006)\u003c/span\u003e, quality means different things to different stakeholders: academics value quality in research, students prioritize teaching quality and learning experience, and employers focus on graduates\u0026apos; competencies and job readiness. Consequently, quality in HEIs is often interpreted as related to the \u0026ldquo;product\u0026rdquo; of these institutions, be it students (competencies and knowledge acquired) \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Weingarten et al., 2018)\u003c/span\u003e, or solutions derived from research implemented for the benefit of society (Huisman \u0026amp; Stensaker, 2022). \u0026nbsp;Some associate quality with the degree of involvement of stakeholders \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Calamet, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e or the institution\u0026rsquo;s overall vision, which is further enhanced by total quality management systems (Nasim et al., 2020; Nogueiro et al., 2021\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e and/or compliance with ISO requirements \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Girmanov\u0026aacute; et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e. Others link the quality of HEIs (world-class universities) to their position in academic rankings \u0026ndash; GUR \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Torabian, 2019; Scott, 2020; S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023)\u003c/span\u003e. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuality in higher education should be embedded in institutional culture, not imposed externally (\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eHildesheim \u0026amp; Sonntag, 2020)\u003c/span\u003e. This aligns with perspectives supporting internalized quality cultures using structured tools (\u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eCardoso et al., 2016; Harvey \u0026amp; Green, 1993)\u003c/span\u003e. Effective systems require clear structures, responsibilities, procedures, and resource management for efficiency and sustainability. Quality assurance must reflect diverse institutional and societal contexts and cannot be universally applied without adaptation \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Barnett, 2023)\u003c/span\u003e. Achieving meaningful quality depends on stakeholder involvement and negotiation, with clearly defined and collectively owned quality requirements. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe Role of Quality Management and Evaluation Systems in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe challenges of maintaining quality have led countries to develop legislation to regulate HEIs and enhance continuous improvement mechanisms. Quality is now a requirement for HEIs, as the quality assurance process itself elevates their excellence \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Aburizaizah, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e. \u0026nbsp; The European Union\u0026apos;s \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eStandards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (2015)\u003c/span\u003e emphasizes that adopting quality evaluation processes, especially external ones, allows European HEIs to demonstrate quality and increase transparency, providing a benchmark for its recognition and facilitating the mobility of students and faculty. These processes foster trust, boosting a belief in the general public\u0026rsquo;s perception that the HEI \u0026quot;has quality\u0026quot;. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis recognition has been overtly decisive and a central element, often highlighted in the speeches of political decision-makers, particularly in African and European HEIs \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Pereira Coutinho et al., 2020)\u003c/span\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYet, other sources of benchmark for shaping institutional reputation and policy decisions and governance, such as traditional academic rankings, have gained a large visibility, often steering the quality debate toward narrower, more contested metrics as we\u0026rsquo;ll see next.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTraditional Rankings (GUR): Characterization and Importance. Do They Serve Quality or Themselves?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA commonly used method for evaluating quality in HEIs, has been through academic rankings (Altbach, 2006, cited by \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eS\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023)\u003c/span\u003e, regarded by some as a tool for university governance \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Righetti, 2019, cited by S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023; Vanz et al., 2018; Wandercil et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e. Among all, the most well-known are: QS Rankings; Academic Ranking of World Universities (also known as the Shanghai Ranking or ARWU); Times Higher Education (THE); and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on key metrics, central to their mission, GURs help HEIs analyse their performance. Some metrics overlap across multiple rankings, while others are unique to a specific ranking (see Figure 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1. \u0026nbsp; SHOULD GO HERE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough each of the four international rankings analyzed has a distinct focus, they share core criteria, particularly regarding publication volume and quality \u0026ndash; and sometimes teaching quality. Some emphasize internationalization, reflecting institutions\u0026rsquo; global orientation. Others stand out for valuing prestigious academic awards and assessing performance per capita\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, or takes a different approach, focusing on online content to measure visibility and open knowledge dissemination, using web-based methodologies like researcher profiles and citations. A distinct indicator relies on knowledge transfer and industry income. There\u0026rsquo;s only one ranking (THE) that measures institutional contributions to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), although this is done separately through a dedicated impact ranking, initiated in 2018. Each ranking, while methodologically distinct, provides insights into key dimensions of institutional performance within the global higher education landscape, reflecting diverse priorities and perspectives.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, rankings face criticism, for instance being based on different metrics and dimensions, which means they cannot measure the same thing, treating different realities as if they were all the same in every place (S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019). The pillars on which quality rests are vague, and the criteria vary from country to country, region to region, and even from institution to institution (Barnett, 2023; Belenkuyu \u0026amp; Karadag, 2023). When attempts were made to \u0026quot;standardize\u0026quot; the rankings based on the Berlin Descriptors, the results were disappointing, indicating that the systems used by the rankings have issues with methodology, transparency, and acceptability \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003e(Belenkuyu \u0026amp; Karadag, 2023)\u003c/span\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother issue is their vertical (top-down) perspective; that is, they do not consider the real challenges societies currently face \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(UNESCO, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e, such as not properly considering the SDG with the necessary depth and scope.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough rankings have suffered a decline in importance as a quality assessment tool in the current legislative context of the sector, they remain highly sought after, mainly due to the marketing and differentiation they generate in the market \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023)\u003c/span\u003e, in an increasingly competitive higher education world \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Harvey, 2008; S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023)\u003c/span\u003e. Their presence has even grown in recent years, particularly in less-developed countries \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Bautista-Puig et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Hazelkorn (in \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eCalder\u0026oacute;n et al., 2019)\u003c/span\u003e, rankings specifically aim to modernize assessment systems, impacting the improvement of performance, accountability, and public visibility of HEIs. However, while they foster a convergence or realignment of academic priorities and research, they are often used to ensure compliance with standards, institutionalizing what should be protected, thereby distorting their broader and more fundamental purpose (Torabian, 2019; Weingarten et al., 2018). This leads to a \u0026ldquo;race for rankings\u0026rdquo;, where institutions aim to look good within the indicators that matter to them. In this sense, the use of traditional ranking systems by HEIs, seems to not guarantee the legitimacy of the quality standards being promoted, even though they have the means and the conditions to do so \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019)\u003c/span\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, rankings reveal aspects of an institution\u0026apos;s quality by monitoring compliance with robust indicators, enhancing trustworthiness, and enabling comparative analysis among HEIs. However, these elements become secondary when the primary goal shifts to attracting and retaining students, leading HEIs to select those that best suit their interests. Rankings seem to serve as ongoing agents for prestigious HEIs, which maintain their top positions in the hierarchy, even if they are not effectively addressing contemporary societal challenges like the SDG.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;best\u0026rdquo; HEIs: a Comparative Analysis according to GUR\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy analyzing the top 15 positions across the four major rankings, from 2014 to 2023, we find institutions with history, prestige, economic power, networks, a strong foundation in teaching and research, and engagement and presence in their communities, through projects, as well as through employability of their graduates \u0026ndash; resulting in a compiled list of 34 leading HEIs (Table 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;SHOULD GO HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNext, we\u0026rsquo;ve broken-down the HEIs, based on the criterion that they had, at least once during this period, been ranked among the top 15 in all four GURs, with the result including 10 HEIs (see Table 2), seven of which are North American and three British.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; SHOULD GO HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo gain an even clearer perspective of each institution\u0026apos;s position in all the rankings, we calculated a final value, by adding their positions (1-15) over the 10-year period across the 4 GURs, and then dividing them by the number of years in which the HEI appeared. The lower value indicates the better position, as it is closer to n=1, the top of the comparative list. The final grid is presented in the following Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; SHOULD GO HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of the indicators and dimensions of the four Global University Rankings (GUR) reveals the strengths and weaknesses of each HEI. Harvard, Stanford, and MIT consistently rank at the top among the four rankings\u003ca href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e, while Oxbridge\u003ca href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e present better results in the THE ranking.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther analysis shows that Harvard excels in Webometrics (strong online presence) and Shanghai (teaching and research indicators as well as per capita performance), MIT leads in QS (reputation and graduate employability), and Oxford dominates in Times (knowledge transfer).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCurrent societal challenges and the impact of the SDG on HEIs performance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMany international organizations (e.g., EU, UNESCO, OECD, World Bank, International Association of Universities (IAU), European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education), authors, and researchers, have spoken of the most important challenges in higher education, and virtually all of them make impactful considerations regarding the SDG. The literature consulted addresses four major challenges of current societies and their repercussions on the governance of HEIs as: a) the impact of actions aimed at sustainability (financial, environmental, social, and cultural) \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Costa, 2022; HESI, 2020; Y\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez et al., 2018)\u003c/span\u003e; b) actions related to DEI\u003ca href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e (diversity, equality, inclusion) \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(HESI, 2020; UNESCO, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e; c) engagement with the community (employability, knowledge transfer, and connection to industry) \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(HESI, 2020; Nogueiro et al., 2021; Y\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez et al., 2018)\u003c/span\u003e; and d) internationalization \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Aburizaizah, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 below presents a hypothetical cross-association between these four challenges and the 17 SDG. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 4. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; SHOULD GO HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUNESCO, in its 2022 report, \u0026ldquo;Knowledge-driven actions: Transforming Higher Education for Global Sustainability\u0026rdquo;, suggests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;the need to move towards inter- and trans- disciplinarity in education and research; the imperative need for institutions to become open, fostering epistemic dialogue and integrating other ways of knowing; and the demand for a much stronger presence in society in general through proactive outreach activities and partnering with other societal actors, in order to build awareness of ecological deterioration and the SDGs in general, and to influence policy\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese priorities align with \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eFilho (2011)\u003c/span\u003e, who affirmed that HEIs fulfil their educational role when they actively promote sustainable development in its various dimensions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier, \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eKent (1996)\u003c/span\u003e warned of a global expansion of HEIs without sufficient diversification of programs, faded to failing to meet basic quality standards or deliver innovations with social relevance. He highlighted major challenges identified by the World Bank, including quality deficits, inefficiency, high dropout rates, program duplication, and unequal access. These persistent concerns underscore the need for changes \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Howlett et al., 2016a)\u003c/span\u003e, as HEIs generally maintain a traditional view of their role in promoting sustainability \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Howlett et al., 2016b; Mokski et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e, often operating in a \u0026quot;silo\u0026quot; format (Aktas, 2015). Additionally, cooperation among HEIs to share knowledge and experiences is often limited (Berchin et al., 2021a), resulting in a slower-than-necessary implementation of sustainability initiatives \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Mokski et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYet, data seem to indicate that the analyzed HEIs are aware of SDG-related practices and incorporate them into their internal organization and quality management systems, leading to higher positions in traditional GURs, while still promoting the SDG. However, as seen in the literature, they adopt the SDG differently \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Berchin et al., 2021b; Mokski et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e sometimes with a sense of urgency \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003e(Allen \u0026amp; Malekpour, 2023)\u003c/span\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 aims at showing how the HEIs that rank best at the chosen GURs tackle the challenges mentioned.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5. SHOULD GO HERE \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe GUR and the SDG \u0026ndash; a path to complementarity?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContemporary societies face numerous challenges linked to the 17 SDG, leading to expectations that higher education institutions (HEIs) will address, at least some of, these issues.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe argument that the GURs are sufficiently satisfactory indicators to determine whether a particular HEI effectively responds to societal challenges is not plausible. Several hypotheses explain the fallibility of global university rankings (GURs). First, they rely on diverse and often incompatible measurement criteria, making meaningful comparisons difficult. Second, they impose standardized parameters that overlook the varied realities of institutions across regions and contexts. Third, they tend to incentivize a competitive \u0026ldquo;arms race\u0026rdquo; among HEIs, encouraging self-promotion and alignment with ranking metrics rather than genuine societal engagement or alignment with the full scope of the Sustainable Development Goals.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to traditional rankings, new sustainability rankings assess how HEIs implement sustainable social, environmental, and financial practices, focusing on carbon footprint, green infrastructure, waste, water, financial management, equity, and poverty reduction in the communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe UI Green Metric is a pioneering ranking system that highlights the role of higher education in advancing sustainable development by assessing institutions\u0026rsquo; sustainability practices and alignment with the SDG. It uses 39 indicators, six criteria\u003ca href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e, related to climate change and began producing its ranking of the most sustainable HEIs in 2010, and using SDG in 2018. Currently, it includes 1,183 HEIs from 84 countries. More recently, the THE Impact Ranking, which released its first report in 2019, has grown to include 1,705 HEIs from 115 countries and regions in its fifth report (2023). It claims to be the only ranking that evaluates HEIs with the SDG as a backdrop and divides its evaluation into four main criteria\u003ca href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e. Another ranking, the QS Sustainability Ranking, has been in existence since 2022 and has already published two reports for the years 2023 and 2024. In its first edition, the assessments were based on the analysis of two criteria and eight indicators\u003ca href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e, involving 700 HEIs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo understand the differences and similarities between academic and sustainability rankings, we analyzed the 2023 data, as earlier data is limited. In 2023, the top 15 positions in the sustainability rankings included 43 HEIs from 14 countries. In contrast, when comparing the data for the same positions, only two HEIs \u0026ndash; University of Pennsylvania and Yale University \u0026ndash; appeared in both rankings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6. SHOULD GO HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHEIs seem to becoming more aware of modern societal challenges and adopting governance policies and quality evaluation systems that prioritize the SDG and stakeholders\u0026rsquo; engagement, which seems to indicate a shift in paradigm. However, critics argue that these rankings merely add to the existing classification market and may not effectively promote the SDG without significant changes (Staub, 2019; Torabian, 2019). These themes will be explored in subsequent chapters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnalytical Framework and Propositions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of quality management systems in higher education, based on assessable and reliable indicators, is deemed an essential governance measure to ensure education quality. However, the literature reveals contrasting interpretations: approaches and assumptions differ and remain neither fully clear nor universally accepted. In this context, clarifying the various perspectives on HEI quality is crucial to enable an empirical analysis that contributes meaningfully to this important issue.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo this end, we propose a systematic structure of the main topics discussed, framed as assumptions that reflect key theoretical positions in the field. Based on the preceding discussion, we propose eight assumptions. These form the conceptual framework of the literature review and serve as an exploratory synthesis to guide the empirical phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first topic concerns the meaning of \u0026ldquo;quality\u0026rdquo; in an organizational context. From the literature (e.g., \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003eGoetsch \u0026amp; Davis, 2016; J. Martin et al., 2020; Santos et al., 2021)\u003c/span\u003e, it is clear that reflection in this domain must consider growing societal challenges and question traditional definitions. Therefore:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 1: Quality in organizations should be defined broadly, integrating not only compliance with specific requirements to ensure the satisfaction of those who directly use their products and services but also incorporating the foundations of sustainable development, aligned with surpassing societal expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding HEI quality, the literature indicates it is complex. While essential to ensuring excellence, credibility, and survival (Nasim et al., 2020; S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023), the diversity of stakeholders and institutional realities (Barnett, 2023) makes universal solutions difficult. Defining quality becomes a negotiated process involving internal and external evaluations with active stakeholder participation. Thus:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 2: Quality in HEIs is always the result of the convergence of positions from various stakeholders, guided by specific legislation, yet insufficiently comprehensive or inclusive to safeguard the specificities of each actor, entity, or region, especially given society\u0026rsquo;s growing challenges and expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mission and vision represent the face HEIs present to the world, differentiating each and linking them to their operational context. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot apply across institutions, as quality must exceed procedural formalism. It is a dynamic, negotiated process where identity, expectations, and strategic goals shape excellence and sustainability:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 3: Quality in HEIs is not a mechanical process of mere organizational adaptation and formalization. It involves negotiated exchanges of expectations and priorities (Mission and Vision) that define each institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile HEIs face the various challenges that quality imposes on their governance, there is also a parallel rise in regulatory frameworks aimed at ensuring their accountability \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003e(Romanowski \u0026amp; Karkouti, 2024)\u003c/span\u003e and entities have emerged to provide robust frameworks. When properly applied, these frameworks seemingly offer institutions a clearer understanding and projection of their quality level. Academic rankings stem from this dynamic, providing visibility and strategic positioning. However, they have been subject to critique (e.g., Harvey, 2008; S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023; Torabian, 2019). Rankings use indicators to assess quality and build trust, but their diversity undermines a shared understanding and encourages selective use as marketing tools. HEIs often invest in indicators that enhance their position in preferred rankings. This practice reinforces ranking-driven indicators, weakens their legitimacy, and distances HEIs from real societal concerns. Hence:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 4: Global University Rankings are internationally recognized as tools for assessing HEI performance and quality. However, questions arise about whether their use perpetuates prescribed descriptors, continuously reconstructing what benefits each stakeholder while failing to clearly and unequivocally address societal challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe challenges faced by contemporary society are so complex and far-reaching that they naturally intersect with the issue of quality, with significant repercussions for HEI governance. Increasingly, attention has focused on principles like equality, justice, and sustainability. SDG represent the operationalization of these principles. The literature suggests that HEIs are responding, especially in areas such as sustainability, equity, internationalization, and community engagement. Sector-specific rankings reflect this inclusion and position institutions accordingly. However, these efforts are not yet sufficient to conclude that societal challenges are being fully addressed (Berchin et al., 2021a; Mokski et al., 2022). Furthermore, HEIs traditionally recognized as top-tier in academic rankings occupy secondary positions or are even absent from such \u0026ldquo;sustainability\u0026rdquo; rankings. Consequently:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 5: Not all current societal challenges are addressed or incorporated into GURs, leaving no guarantees that the HEIs ranked highest \u0026ndash; presumably of higher quality \u0026ndash; adequately address these challenges, particularly the implementation of the SDG.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile HEIs increasingly recognize the need to consider indicators beyond traditional rankings, change has been slow, especially among top-ranked institutions. Reasons include financial costs and the relative novelty of these concerns within ranking systems, which does not yet seem to have gained traction. Some authors, on the other hand, view the creation of this additional type of ranking yet another manoeuvre by its promoters to introduce a new \u0026ldquo;product\u0026rdquo; that allows HEIs to add another element to their portfolio of marketing strategies. Thus:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 6: The paradigm shift towards the SDG in HEI quality evaluation systems has been gradual and slow. Sustainability rankings are, in some cases, perceived as \u0026ldquo;more of the same\u0026rdquo; (Staub, 2019; Torabian, 2019), reflecting the speed and interests of HEIs better positioned in traditional GURs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt can be argued that HEIs must adopt a contextualized approach that balances global sustainability imperatives and the SDG, with institutional strengths, ensuring meaningful and lasting contributions to societal challenges. Integrating the SDG should not compromise autonomy or critical thought but must be acknowledged as central to modern HEIs relevance, to be recognized as being \u0026ldquo;of quality\u0026rdquo;. Therefore:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 7: There is no alternative to the SDG in HEI governance. All HEIs must urgently adjust their quality policies to this reality, to respond effectively to societal challenges.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite growing concern over HEIs\u0026rsquo; societal role and the recognized importance of including the SDG in their governance models, reality points to a conflict between alternatives. While national frameworks support quality, the dominance of rankings of sustainability (SDG) often conflict rather than complement GUR. Hence, the final assumption sums up:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 8: In HEI governance and in the face of societal challenges, quality encounters both conflict and complementarity arising from the hypothetical simultaneous implementation of GURs and SDG.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above assumptions, the next section of this paper describes the research methodology employed in the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eQuality in HEIs requires a sustainability-based approach that balances stakeholder perspectives, rankings, and regulations while addressing societal challenges. However, rankings often prioritize marketing over inclusivity and SDG, limiting their ability to assess real impact. As a result, top-ranked HEIs may score poorly on sustainability. Progress toward SDG-focused evaluations remains slow due to conflicts with academic rankings. Therefore, HEI governance must urgently prioritize the SDG to meet societal expectations and respond effectively to emerging challenges.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe various topics addressed here are sensitive, controversial, and subject to interpretations that do not always converge. This leads us to propose a research strategy that provides genuine and flexible access to interpretative insights, held by participants in the field of study, without the objective of the empirical study becoming a generalization of the data. To achieve this, we adopted an exploratory-descriptive logic \u003cspan lang=\"EN-GB\"\u003e(Fortin \u0026amp; Salgueiro, 2009)\u003c/span\u003e, grounded in an interpretative epistemological orientation \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Leavy, 2020; Saunders et al., 2019)\u003c/span\u003e, with the aim of extracting the meaning individuals attribute to the phenomena they engage with, according to their role in the regulatory system of HEIs. This methodological choice focuses on the possibility of understanding a given social reality, which should be interpreted by the internationally recognized experts in higher education who live and experience such social phenomena.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe method used for collecting qualitative data was the semi-structured interview (Leavy, 2020). The topics or propositions outlined were expanded into questions formulated and re-formulated during the interaction between the interviewee and the interviewer, focusing on questions about beliefs and knowledge, always directed towards the specificity of the topic under discussion (Bryman \u0026amp; Bell, 2007). The interviews were requested via email and conducted online.\u0026nbsp;Four seasoned professors from Portugal and Spain were selected for interview, some of them with high responsibilities within quality and accreditation systems in their countries. A summary of our work was sent, without disclosing the propositions discussed earlier. The interviews were recorded to ensure accurate and detailed data, preserving authenticity\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. \u0026nbsp;Interviews complemented our theoretical analysis, offering diverse perspectives through open-ended dialogue and observations, enabling richer, more precise empirical interpretation of key topics. Procedures followed the principles of Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe article presents an exploratory nature, with an analytical, descriptive, and comparative perspective, referencing secondary sources of information \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(S\u0026aacute;ez et al., 2023)\u003c/span\u003e such as international declarations on SDG, and global perspectives of organizations such as the EU, UNESCO, OECD, World Bank, and the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. We also analyzed content found on the websites of the four GURs considered the most relevant and comprehensive. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Creswell (2009), qualitative research is interpretive, involving description of individuals and/or settings, thematic analysis, and drawing of conclusions. It includes personal and theoretical insights, lessons learned, and new questions. Our framework, based on raised propositions, aimed to clarify the central research question.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA final note on the use of generative AI in this paper: the authors made use of ChatGPT (version 4.0) as a translation tool and to verify the accuracy and APA 7th edition compliance of all cited sources in references.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Findings ","content":"\u003cp\u003eAll interviewees acknowledge the complexity of the concept of quality and the need for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to respond to stakeholders\u0026apos; expectations, which is Proposition 1 (P1). There is agreement on the importance of formal evaluation systems, although doubts remain regarding their applicability. Some interviewees stress the need for clear and measurable criteria, as quality is a complex and subjective concept, shaped by stakeholders. The success of quality assurance depends on meeting stakeholder expectations and aligning with each institution\u0026rsquo;s specific measurement and control systems to meet sustainable development. The scientific relevance of this dimension lies in the fact that, despite the multiple understandings, quality cannot be reduced to formal and objective conditions alone, as these enable a more transparent and credible reading of institutional performance. However, given its subjectivity, quality must be adjusted to institutional reality and available resources in order to foster credibility and visibility. Divergences are noted in terms of the extent of universities\u0026apos; responsibilities and the tension between institutional mission and societal expectations. Autonomy emerges as a critical variable in the context of social challenges, including sustainable development. HEI leadership is deemed preferable to reactivity in response to external demands, although such demands do not always align with existing quality frameworks. The scientific relevance of this issue lies in the need for a transversal normative framework, accepted by all stakeholders, that promotes socially expected practices and ensures autonomy, mission, and the necessary resources. It is thus concluded that a comprehensive concept of quality remains hypothetical, opening the way for reflection on the role of universities in the face of societal demands, with a view to fostering more proactive, competitive, and participatory institutional leadership.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the results from Proposition 2 (P2), while quality in higher education institutions (HEIs) is assumed to require convergence among stakeholder perspectives, interviewees stress a limited responsiveness to local specificities and rising societal challenges. They highlight the role of national accreditation agencies in ensuring minimum quality standards, adding that addressing socio-economic challenges necessitates adequate funding, and underscore the reactive posture of universities to external pressures. Respondents agree HEIs operate in complex ecosystems shaped by socio-economic and contextual forces, where quality systems, though essential, remain flawed. Despite facing shared challenges, institutions vary in autonomy, responsiveness, and quality system efficacy \u0026ndash; reflecting contrasting priorities, as supported by the literature \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(e.g., Barnett, 2023; Calamet, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e. The findings affirm that quality should be grounded in shared stakeholder understanding, aligned with institutional missions and resources. Ultimately, some argue (e.g., \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eCalamet, 2022)\u003c/span\u003e, the central question is \u003cem\u003ewhat kind of quality is being pursued\u003c/em\u003e? \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupporting the previous argument, Proposition 3 (P3) musters broad agreement that quality should reflect each institution\u0026rsquo;s identity and objectives, rather than being imposed through overly standardized metrics. Interviewees acknowledge the diversity within the higher education sector, reinforcing the need for alignment between institutional missions and both internal and external evaluation systems. Thus, quality systems must allow flexibility in defining evaluation criteria, enabling HEIs to express their unique identities through their mission, vision, strategy, and resource base. Rather than aiming for uniform criteria, a balanced approach is needed \u0026ndash; one that respects institutional autonomy and strategic goals, while remaining responsive to both internal and external economic pressures \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Mokski et al., 2022)\u003c/span\u003e. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 4 (P4) introduces the critical debate surrounding global university rankings, widely adopted by many HEIs as tools for performance and quality assessment. However, doubts arise whether their appeal reflects genuine evaluation or simply reshaping priorities to match ranking descriptors. Interviewees argue that rankings fail to capture the diversity and complexity of HEIs and question the transparency of ranking criteria, suggesting the influence of hidden agendas, viewing rankings as reflective of elite interests and power structures. \u0026nbsp;All interviewees express reservations about the perceived credibility of GURs, noting their tendency to oversimplify and the underlying financial, political, and marketing motivations. This critique is academically significant, revealing a gap between the public visibility conferred by rankings and the more sceptical perceptions held by key stakeholders. In line with critical literature, rankings are portrayed as controversial tools with limited merit and opaque criteria, often sustained by significant financial investment. A more inclusive evaluative model, such as U-Multirank, is therefore preferred.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 5 (P5) highlights that Global University Rankings do not necessarily reflect whether highly ranked institutions effectively address contemporary societal challenges, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals. This concern is echoed by most interviewees, who agree that GURs and SDG represent distinct and often incompatible evaluation logics: rankings reinforce traditional metrics of excellence, whereas the SDG foreground ethical and societal values. Some link research performance to funding, noting that resource availability shapes priorities. Others stress the misalignment between SDG and GUR, though acknowledging the prestige and hard work of top institutions. This aligns with critical perspectives in the literature (e.g., \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eMokski et al. 2022)\u003c/span\u003e. The SDG set objectives that go beyond conventional quality metrics and remain poorly integrated into HEI funding or assessment models. According to the interviewees, while GUR offer limited guidance on societal responsiveness, an institution engaging with local and global challenges may, despite not topping global rankings, make a meaningful contribution to a just, sustainable, and responsible future.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 6 (P6) argues that any transition by HEI in response to contemporary social challenges \u0026ndash; such as those represented by the SDG \u0026ndash; will necessarily be gradual, slow \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003e(Mokski et al. 2022),\u003c/span\u003e and \u0026ldquo;more-of-the-same\u0026rdquo; (Staub, 2019; Torabian, 2019). Interviewees argued that the universality of the SDG, which encompass diverse local realities, cannot be reduced to the global, often standardized logic of rankings. Still, there\u0026apos;s consensus on the need for institutions to engage progressively with global concerns like the SDG. However, this transition must respect the unique missions and constraints of each HEI. The interviews reveal a tension between adapting to global pressures and maintaining institutional integrity, particularly in highly competitive academic environments. This complexity underscores the need for a transformation of ranking systems themselves, aligning them not only with academic excellence but also with social relevance and global responsibility. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 7 (P7) highlights the strategic relevance of the SDG in the governance of HEIs, urging rapid adjustments to quality policies to address societal challenges. However, some view this expectation as utopian, cautioning that overburdening universities with the SDG agenda may divert them from their core academic mission. In contrast, others perceive the SDG as strategic opportunities, provided their integration aligns with institutional missions and existing quality systems, preparing individuals to tackle societal issues. Despite varied views, most agree HEIs should selectively engage with SDG, aligned with their identity. Interviewees express cautious openness to SDG integration, coupled with concern about preserving autonomy and relevance. Echoing Chankseliani \u0026amp; McCowan (2021), they argue for a flexible, context-sensitive approach that empowers institutions to lead societal change, rather than passively follow global trends. Ultimately, the proposition raises a critical question: what is the actual role of higher education in advancing the SDG \u0026ndash; an issue still subject to significant debate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposition 8 (P8) reinforces the prior discussion by highlighting the complex governance challenges faced by HEIs in reconciling Global University Rankings with the Sustainable Development Goals. While some see potential alignment between some ranking criteria and institutional priorities, others call for a fundamental revision of evaluation metrics, and advocate for a more SDG-focused strategic approach. Despite varying perspectives, interviewees acknowledge the growing relevance of the SDG in higher education and support adapting current systems to strike a balance between innovation and established practices. This requires recognising the tension between global metrics and local contexts. As noted by \u003cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003eMokski et al. (2022)\u003c/span\u003e, moving toward a more sustainable and inclusive model demands reconfiguring quality systems. Yet integration is complex, as SDG add evaluative layers shaped by economic, social, and cultural factors. Conflicting interpretations of urgent global challenges \u0026ndash; such as climate action (SDG 13), responsible consumption (SDG 12), gender equality (SDG 5), and equitable access to quality education (SDG 4) \u0026ndash; further complicate alignment. Concerns also arise over institutions becoming \u0026quot;degree mills\u0026quot; and neglecting their social missions. While the complementarity of QMS, GUR, and SDGs holds promise, it is also fraught with tensions that demand critical reflection and contextual sensitivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the final topic, interviewees offer complementary perspectives on what quality in higher education institutions (HEIs) means to them. Some advocate for an integrated approach, arguing that quality derives from a composite indicator encompassing education, research, external relations, internal environment, and equity \u0026ndash; dimensions that are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Others emphasize the role of student quality, suggesting that the excellence of an institution is largely determined by the profile and potential of the students it attracts, or faculty quality, viewing it as the primary evaluation criterion, measured through student feedback, graduate career outcomes, and research productivity. Despite emphasizing different aspects, all interviewees converge on the importance of fostering a strong quality culture within HEIs, shaped by multiple and context-specific references. The coexistence of diverse criteria reflect the multiple meanings of quality. While the intentionality behind existing standards in the sector remains open to debate, there is consensus on the interdependence between teaching, research, external engagement, and institutional factors as central to a more effective understanding of quality \u0026ndash; an argument supported in the literature (e.g., Steele \u0026amp; Rickards, 2021, cited by Kassim \u0026amp; Polar, 2023). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;SHOULD GO HERE\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eQuality in higher education is a complex concept, subject to subjective interpretation and in constant evolution. In the context of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), it goes beyond traditional models centered on technical excellence and compliance, requiring more comprehensive approaches aligned with contemporary social challenges. The governance of HEIs continues to be strongly conditioned by quality assurance instruments, such as national accreditation systems and global rankings. However, doubts persist regarding the capacity of these frameworks to effectively respond to the demands imposed by the SDG, particularly in the areas of Sustainability, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), Internationalization, and Community Engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile GURs continue to shape institutional reputation and strategy, evidence suggests that the best-performing HEIs in these rankings could contribute more to the aforementioned challenges. Rankings tend to prioritize criteria related to influence and prestige, reinforcing an internal market logic among the most competitive HEIs, which perpetuates inequalities and limits the diversity of responses to social needs. Some institutions attempt to complement GURs with sustainable practices; however, such integration remains uneven and slow, without significantly altering the dominant paradigm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of more inclusive quality systems requires an increased degree of formalization and regulation, with carefully selected criteria adapted to institutional specificities and autonomy. It is less about imposing universal solutions, but ensuring academic excellence coexists with social responsibility, respecting each HEI\u0026rsquo;s mission, which legitimizes strategies adopted. Any attempt to integrate the SDG into HE evaluation systems requires flexibility, context, and resource safeguarding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstead of conceiving GURs and SDG as opposites, an integrated and holistic vision is proposed, capable of reconciling international recognition with local commitment. The future of quality in higher education will depend on the ability of HEIs to balance academic prestige with social relevance, becoming key actors in sustainable, inclusive, and participatory development. In this process, the culture of quality must remain dynamic, critical, and adaptable, reflecting the plurality of missions and contexts that characterize the sector.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAll participants in the study provided their informed consent to participate.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAburizaizah, S. (2022). The role of quality assurance in Saudi higher education institutions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Research Open, 3\u003c/em\u003e, 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100127\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAktas, C. (2015). Reflections on interdisciplinary sustainability research with undergraduate students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16\u003c/em\u003e, 354\u0026ndash;366. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2013-0153\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, C., \u0026amp; Malekpour, S. (2023). Unlocking and accelerating transformations to the SDGs: A review of existing knowledge. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science, 18\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1939\u0026ndash;1960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01342-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarnett, R. (2023). Only connect: Designing university futures. \u003cem\u003eQuality in Higher Education, 29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 116\u0026ndash;131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2022.2100627\u003cbr\u003eBautista-Puig, N., Ordu\u0026ntilde;a-Malea, E., \u0026amp; Perez-Esparrells, C. (2022). Enhancing sustainable development goals or promoting universities? An analysis of the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23\u003c/em\u003e(8), 211\u0026ndash;231. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0309\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelenkuyu, C., \u0026amp; Karadag, E. (2023). Defining standards for rankings: An investigation of global university rankings according to the Berlin Principles. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Education, 58\u003c/em\u003e(3), 510\u0026ndash;531. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerchin, I. I., de Aguiar Dutra, A. R., \u0026amp; Guerra, J. B. S. O. de A. (2021). How do higher education institutions promote sustainable development? A literature review. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Development, 29\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1204\u0026ndash;1222. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2219\u003cbr\u003eBryman, A., \u0026amp; Bell, E. (2007). \u003cem\u003eBusiness research method\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1093/hebz/9780198869443.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalamet, F. G. A. (2022). An extensive literature review on the predominant conceptualizations of quality in higher education and its main components. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22\u003c/em\u003e(7). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v22i7.5280\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalder\u0026oacute;n, A., Wandercil, M., \u0026amp; Martins, E. (2019). Rankings acad\u0026eacute;micos e governan\u0026ccedil;a universit\u0026aacute;ria no espa\u0026ccedil;o do ensino superior de l\u0026iacute;ngua portuguesa: Angola, Cabo Verde, Macau, Mo\u0026ccedil;ambique, Portugal e Brasil.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., \u0026amp; Stensaker, B. (2016). Why is quality in higher education not achieved? The view of academics. \u003cem\u003eAssessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41\u003c/em\u003e(6), 950\u0026ndash;965. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1052775\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChankseliani, M., \u0026amp; McCowan, T. (2021). Higher education and the Sustainable Development Goals. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education, 81\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00652-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosta, D. de M. (2022). Canadian higher education system: Evaluation of the HEQCO Agency for the development of education in the province of Ontario. \u003cem\u003eEnsaio: Avalia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o e Pol\u0026iacute;ticas P\u0026uacute;blicas em Educa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o, 30\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2009). \u003cem\u003eResearch design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelors, J. (2000). \u003cem\u003eEduca\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o: Um tesouro a descobrir: Relat\u0026oacute;rio para a UNESCO da Comiss\u0026atilde;o Internacional sobre Educa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o para o S\u0026eacute;culo XXI\u003c/em\u003e. Cortez.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFilho, W. L. (2011). About the role of universities and their contribution to sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Policy, 24\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.16\u003cbr\u003eFortin, M.-F., \u0026amp; Salgueiro. (2009). \u003cem\u003eO processo de investiga\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o: Da concep\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o \u0026agrave; realiza\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o\u003c/em\u003e. Lusoci\u0026ecirc;ncia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGirmanov\u0026aacute;, L., \u0026Scaron;olc, M., Bla\u0026scaron;ko, P., \u0026amp; Petr\u0026iacute;k, J. (2022). Quality management system in education: Application of quality management models in educational organization \u0026ndash; Case study from the Slovak Republic. \u003cem\u003eStandards, 2\u003c/em\u003e, 460\u0026ndash;473. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards2040031\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoetsch, D. L., \u0026amp; Davis, S. (2016). \u003cem\u003eQuality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality\u003c/em\u003e (14th ed.). Pearson Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarvey, L. (2024). Extended editorial: Defining quality thirty years on: Quality, standards, assurance, culture and epistemology. \u003cem\u003eQuality in Higher Education, 30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 145\u0026ndash;184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2024.2355026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarvey, L., \u0026amp; Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. \u003cem\u003eAssessment \u0026amp; Evaluation in Higher Education, 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHigher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI). (2020). \u003cem\u003eAssessments of higher education\u0026rsquo;s progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHildesheim, C., \u0026amp; Sonntag, K. (2020). The Quality Culture Inventory: A comprehensive approach towards measuring quality culture in higher education. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education, 45\u003c/em\u003e(4), 892\u0026ndash;908. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672639\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHowlett, C., Ferreira, J.-A., \u0026amp; Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuisman, J., \u0026amp; Stensaker, B. (2022). Performance governance and management in higher education revisited: International developments and perspectives. \u003cem\u003eQuality in Higher Education, 28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 106\u0026ndash;119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1951457\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKassim, H.-S., \u0026amp; Polar, P. (2023). \u003cem\u003eMeasuring the impact of universities on the Sustainable Development Goals\u003c/em\u003e. [Manuscrito n\u0026atilde;o publicado ou documento n\u0026atilde;o identificado em fonte acad\u0026eacute;mica].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKent, R. (1996). The World Bank and UNESCO on higher education. \u003cem\u003eInternational Higher Education, 4\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.1996.4.6200\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeavy, P. (Ed.). (2020). \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford handbook of qualitative research\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarvey, L. (Ed.). (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. \u003cem\u003eQuality in Higher Education, 14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 187\u0026ndash;207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802507711\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, J., Elg, M., \u0026amp; Gremyr, I. (2020). The many meanings of quality: Towards a definition in support of sustainable operations. \u003cem\u003eTotal Quality Management \u0026amp; Business Excellence\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1844564\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, M., \u0026amp; Stella, A. (2006). \u003cem\u003eMaking basic choices for external quality assurance systems\u003c/em\u003e. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) / UNESCO.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMattos, L. K. de, Flach, L., Costa, A. M., \u0026amp; Mor\u0026eacute;, R. P. O. (2023). Effectiveness and sustainability indicators in higher education management. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 15\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 10298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010298\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMokski, E., Filho, W., Sehnem, S., \u0026amp; Andrade Guerra, J. B. (2022). Education for sustainable development in higher education institutions: An approach for effective interdisciplinarity. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 0306. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0306\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNasim, K., Sikander, A., \u0026amp; Tian, X. (2020). Twenty years of research on total quality management in higher education: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Quarterly, 74\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12227\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNogueiro, T., Saraiva, M., \u0026amp; Jorge, F. (2021). Total quality management and social responsibility: An approach through their synergies in higher education institutions. In A. Rocha, C. Ferr\u0026aacute;s, \u0026amp; M. P. Cota (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eTrends and innovations in information systems and technologies\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2, pp. 311\u0026ndash;321). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5063-5_26\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePereira Coutinho, F., Carapeto, M., \u0026amp; Oliveira, E. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEduca\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de qualidade e desenvolvimento na Lusofonia\u003c/em\u003e. [Informa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o editorial em falta \u0026mdash; incluir editora ou entidade publicadora, se poss\u0026iacute;vel].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomanowski, M. H., \u0026amp; Karkouti, I. M. (2024). United States accreditation in higher education: Does it dilute academic freedom? \u003cem\u003eQuality in Higher Education, 30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 97\u0026ndash;111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2022.2127165\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;ez, W., Ganga, F., Calder\u0026oacute;n, A., \u0026amp; Wandercil, M. (2023). \u0026iquest;Universidades de clase mundial? Las universidades chilenas en los rankings acad\u0026eacute;micos internacionales. \u003cem\u003eRevista Meta: Avalia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o, 15\u003c/em\u003e(46), 1\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.22347/2175-2753v15i46.3892\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantos, G., S\u0026aacute;, J. C., F\u0026eacute;lix, M. J., Barreto, L., Carvalho, F., Doiro, M., Zgodavov\u0026aacute;, K., \u0026amp; Stefanović, M. (2021). New needed quality management skills for quality managers 4.0. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 13\u003c/em\u003e(11), Article 6149. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116149\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaunders, M., Lewis, P., \u0026amp; Thornhill, A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods for business students\u003c/em\u003e (8th ed.). Pearson Deutschland. https://elibrary.pearson.de/book/99.150005/9781292208794\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott, P. (2020). Governance of higher education. In M. Trowler (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge handbook of the sociology of higher education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 654\u0026ndash;659). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4135/978152914395.n246\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStandards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). \u003cem\u003eStandards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). ENQA. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStaub, D. (2019). \u0026lsquo;Another accreditation? What\u0026rsquo;s the point?\u0026rsquo; Effective planning and implementation for specialised accreditation. \u003cem\u003eQuality in Higher Education, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 171\u0026ndash;190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1634342\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaysum, A. (2019). Groundwork case study of universities\u0026rsquo; building capacity for education, inclusion and philosophies of trust through doctoral study: The literature and methodologies. In A. Taysum (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eEducation policy as a roadmap for achieving the sustainable development goals\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 141\u0026ndash;169). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-297-820191009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorabian, J. E. (2019). Revisiting global university rankings and their indicators in the age of sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eSustainability: The Journal of Record, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.1089/sus.2018.0037\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO Global Independent Expert Group on the Universities and the 2030 Agenda. (2022). \u003cem\u003eKnowledge-driven actions: Transforming higher education for global sustainability\u003c/em\u003e. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381278\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO, Right to Education Initiative (UK). (2022). \u003cem\u003eRight to higher education: Unpacking the international normative framework in light of current trends and challenges\u003c/em\u003e. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000382764\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanz, S., Pandiella, A., Lascurain, M., \u0026amp; Casado, E. (2018). Rankings universit\u0026aacute;rios internacionais e o desafio para as universidades brasileiras. \u003cem\u003eEncontros Bibli: Revista Eletr\u0026ocirc;nica de Biblioteconomia e Ci\u0026ecirc;ncia da Informa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o, 23\u003c/em\u003e(53), 39\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2018v23n53p39\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eW\u0026auml;chter, B., Kelo, M., Lam, Q., Jost, C., \u0026amp; Kottowski, S. (2015). \u003cem\u003eQuality indicators: A critical assessment\u003c/em\u003e. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). [Link ausente \u0026ndash; incluir se dispon\u0026iacute;vel]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWandercil, M., Calder\u0026oacute;n, A. I., \u0026amp; Ganga-Contreras, F. (2022). Os rankings acad\u0026ecirc;micos: Implica\u0026ccedil;\u0026otilde;es na governan\u0026ccedil;a universit\u0026aacute;ria das universidades cat\u0026oacute;licas brasileiras. \u003cem\u003eRevista Internacional de Educa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Superior \u0026ndash; RIESup, 9\u003c/em\u003e(00), e024036. https://doi.org/10.20396/riesup.v9i00.8658273\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeingarten, H. P., Hicks, M., \u0026amp; Kaufman, A. (Eds.). (2018). \u003cem\u003eInternational perspectives\u003c/em\u003e. McGill-Queen\u0026rsquo;s University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8bt1jw\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eY\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, S., Uruburu, \u0026Aacute;., Moreno, A., \u0026amp; Lumbreras, J. (2018). The sustainability report as an essential tool for the holistic and strategic vision of higher education institutions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production, 207\u003c/em\u003e, 57\u0026ndash;66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.171\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Mobilized by 193 UN Member States, this commitment highlights the need to align global sustainability strategies with local actions, raising awareness among stakeholders about addressing major environmental threats and necessary adaptations.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The weighted scores of five indicators: quality of education / faculty (or number of students / number of staff members receiving awards and medals) / highly cited researchers in 21 broad research categories / and research output based on 2 top publications: (articles published in Nature and Science or papers indexed in the Science Citation Index-expanded and the Social Science Citation Index) per academic staff.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The lowest positions of these HEIs were: MIT ranked 6th in 2015 in the Times, Stanford ranked 7th in 2014/15 in the QS, and Harvard ranked 7th in 2020 in the Times.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Oxford and Cambridge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Meanwhile, we see growing changes in the US at public universities, since January 2023, as a result of legislation, orders, or other actions at the state level that restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, as demonstrated by The Chronicle report, that analyzed about 200 HEIs in 30 states. (source: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.chronicle.com/article/tracking-higher-eds-dismantling-of-dei?utm_source=Iterable\u0026amp;utm_medium=email\u0026amp;utm_campaign=campaign_11086095_nl_Academe-Today_date_20240917\u0026amp;sra=true\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.chronicle.com/article/tracking-higher-eds-dismantling-of-dei?utm_source=Iterable\u0026amp;utm_medium=email\u0026amp;utm_campaign=campaign_11086095_nl_Academe-Today_date_20240917\u0026amp;sra=true\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Setting \u0026amp; Infrastructure, Energy \u0026amp; Climate Change, Waste, Water, Transportation, Education \u0026amp; Research.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Research, Stewardship, Outreach and Teaching.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Environmental sustainability measures \u0026ndash; sustainable institutions, education and research \u0026ndash; and social impact measures, which includes equality, knowledge exchange, educational impact, employability and opportunities, and quality of life.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Recorded interviews capture tone and context, enhancing authenticity and enabling repeated analysis. They also provide verifiable evidence, strengthening data interpretation, research credibility, and support for conclusions.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 7 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\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, Quality in Higher Education, Societal challenges, Global University Rankings","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7186771/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7186771/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAre Higher Education Institutions (HEI) satisfactorily answering to the challenges faced by their encompassing societies? Are their quality assessment systems conducive to a continuous improvement in fulfilling their vision and mission, and responding to their various stakeholders? What are HEIs contributions and challenges, vis-à-vis the adoption of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)? These questions reinforce discussions on SDGs’ influence and impact as key evaluation criteria for addressing social challenges in higher education. It has been common practice, when evaluating HEIs quality, to rely on their positioning according to Global University Rankings (GUR), as they seemingly provide an effective and credible assessment. However, full integration of principles required by the rankings with strategic guidelines indicated by the SDG is a topic that necessitates a more in-depth discussion in HE. We analyzed the strategies of ten HEIs that have consistently ranked in the top positions in four of the most important GURs over a ten-year period (2014-2023). The results suggest that: 1) the current challenges they predominantly engage with fall within the areas of Sustainability, DEI, Internationalization, and Outreach; 2) a paradigm shift is occurring in GURs towards better alignment with the SDG; 3) HEIs have been adjusting their quality systems to remain at the forefront of specific rankings, contributing rather slowly to the dissemination of the SDG. This study constitutes a reflection on the quality of HEI, beyond the traditional evaluation criteria established by the rankings, while simultaneously confronting them constructively in the face of societal challenges, posed from the perspective of the SDGs.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Quality of Higher Education Institutions – International Rankings, Responses to Social Challenges and the SDG","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-25 07:17:09","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7186771/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":"e91be8b1-619f-4ff6-9879-d03cd85e7b0b","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-25T07:17:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-25 07:17:09","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7186771","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7186771","identity":"rs-7186771","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}