View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Did Global Rankings and National Accreditation Drive Taiwanese Universities to Advance Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?--Competitive Advantage, a Moral Symbol or Leading to a Paradigm Shift

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Did Global Rankings and National Accreditation Drive Taiwanese Universities to Advance Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?--Competitive Advantage, a Moral Symbol or Leading to a Paradigm Shift
Language: English
Authors: Angela Yung Chi Hou (ORCID 0000-0003-3349-5671), Ying Chen (ORCID 0000-0001-8026-7757), Arianna Fang Yu Lin, Edward Hung Cheng Su (ORCID 0000-0003-1687-2818), Kyle Zi-Wei Zhou, Christopher Hong-Yi Tao
Source: Higher Education Quarterly. 2025 79(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Universities, Sustainable Development, Accreditation (Institutions), Institutional Characteristics, Achievement Rating, Program Implementation, Social Responsibility, Alignment (Education), Quality Assurance
Geographic Terms: Taiwan
DOI: 10.1111/hequ.70031
ISSN: 0951-5224
1468-2273
Abstract: Universities have recognised the pivotal role they play in advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to build a sustainable society. Two quality assessment instruments in higher education, global rankings and quality assurance, have developed a new set of metrics to measure university commitment to SDGs. This paper aims to analyse the SDGs advancement of Taiwan's 46 universities listed in THE Impact Ranking 2022 in response to the emerging sustainability metrics developed by global rankings and national accreditation, and to explore the purposes, institutional strategies and challenges they encountered. Major findings are as follows. Firstly, competitive advantage is the key reason driving universities for SDGs implementation. Secondly, the common strategy is to align university social responsibility project with general education curriculum. Thirdly, SDGs data reliability, internal quality assurance (IQA) mechanism establishment, intersectoral coordination and faculty and student engagement are the key challenges for SDGs implementation in Taiwan's universities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1478819
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHoE-0fJB9BRDwfYYA0Ifp0AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL-ejoHp7VWuLUpfSAIBEICBm6FVfJRBxyHyD4CQL1zLIDcjB3gLDLF9ROjhOsaD5YL-TmpOkpv-mRt9iDVt2sgRKKwgSdbefZ2o_rQR5u9jVQyU1f0nVvd-TGh8elKpBwsgebAKtKSXqoaVZr4zBoAVodDC8msA13PO_U596fByxhCCCad5mCXfngPIYr8vxbvOUVcctzZ4QH0AT3Ss3SX12lWY0nL-Jvl3Jvf3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186991653;d8501jul.25;2025Jul31.05:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186991653-1">Did Global Rankings and National Accreditation Drive Taiwanese Universities to Advance Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?—Competitive Advantage, a Moral Symbol or Leading to a Paradigm Shift </title> <p>Universities have recognised the pivotal role they play in advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to build a sustainable society. Two quality assessment instruments in higher education, global rankings and quality assurance, have developed a new set of metrics to measure university commitment to SDGs. This paper aims to analyse the SDGs advancement of Taiwan's 46 universities listed in THE Impact Ranking 2022 in response to the emerging sustainability metrics developed by global rankings and national accreditation, and to explore the purposes, institutional strategies and challenges they encountered. Major findings are as follows. Firstly, competitive advantage is the key reason driving universities for SDGs implementation. Secondly, the common strategy is to align university social responsibility project with general education curriculum. Thirdly, SDGs data reliability, internal quality assurance (IQA) mechanism establishment, intersectoral coordination and faculty and student engagement are the key challenges for SDGs implementation in Taiwan's universities.</p> <p>Keywords: global ranking; institutional accreditation; quality assurance; sustainability</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-2">Introduction</hd> <p>With this growing and expanding mission, higher education institutions (HEIs) started to embrace new responsibilities in the changing higher education landscape, including social impact, community engagement, global sustainable development (Higher Education Sustainability Initiative [HESI] [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]). In 2015, the United Nations released the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) consisting of 17 core goals, 169 targets and 230 indicators as a roadmap for the world's collective efforts to achieve sustainability (United Nations [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref2">61</reflink>]). Given that SDGs aim to end poverty, protect the global environment and secure future prosperity for all, demonstrating a commitment to sustainability is becoming essential for HEIs worldwide (APEC [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Ministry of Education, Taiwan [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref4">38</reflink>]; Stensaker and Hermansen [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref5">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Owing to widespread implementation of UN SDGs worldwide, Asian governments began to take a new turn to address several emerging themes in SDGs, such as clean energy, green economy, decarbonising transportation, etc. (APEC [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]), which is manifested to facilitate universities to integrate sustainability into institutional policies, governance and practices (Lakhno [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref7">33</reflink>]; Stensaker and Hermansen [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref8">56</reflink>]). Intrinsically, the concept of 'sustainability' seems to be invisibly institutionalised within campuses in Asia via taking proactive initiatives to build resilience, strengthen environmental sustainability and advance inclusiveness. Extrinsically, HEIs are motivated to develop institutional strategies related to the advancement of SDGs due to global rankings and national accreditation (Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan [HEEACT] [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]; International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education [INQAAHE] [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]; SDSN Australia/Pacific [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref11">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the 2000s, quality assurance (QA) and rankings could be regarded as the most powerful tools to measure a university's accountability and academic performance—the former one with the characteristics of fitness for purposes adopted by governments; the latter published by mass media by involving an ordering of institutions in a set of selected indicators (INQAAHE [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]; Hazelkorn [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]). As a global phenomenon, they have successfully drawn greater attention from policy makers, university administrators, global data publishers, teachers, students, graduates, communities, as well as industries. Literally, both instruments have already had a profound impact on national policy making, institutional governance and management and academic lives (Eaton [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]; Hazelkorn [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). Yet, both accountability tools have also brought several criticisms, such as methodological limitations, inability to respond to diversification in higher education, creating a paradox of pursuit of academic excellence and mission mismatch in universities, and scepticism on the accuracy and consistency of review decisions (Hou [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Concurrently, more than 1500 institutions from 112 countries and regions have committed themselves towards sustainability (Times Higher Education [THE] [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref17">58</reflink>]). Global rankings and QA agencies, responding to this demand, developed a new set of metrics to measure university SDGs' commitment (Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]). For example, in 2019, THE published the global ranking titled 'THE Impact Ranking' to assess universities against the SDGs. Subsequently, 'QS Sustainability Ranking' was released in 2022, aiming to assess the environmental and social impact of the top 700 universities around the world. Despite global rankings, international QA organisation and national accreditors were planning to integrate the SDGs into new standards framework and external review procedures. In 2019, the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), the largest global QA network published a report titled 'Proposal of indicators to embed the SDGs into Institutional Quality Assessment' to support national accreditors and HEIs in embedding the SDGs into quality policy, developing indicators and assessing university's performance (INQAAHE [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>As the first INQAAHE GGP aligned QA agency during the pandemic, Taiwan's national accreditor, <emph>Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council</emph> (<emph>HEEACT</emph>), started to embed the concept of 'sustainability' into the third cycle of institutional accreditation in 2023 (HEEACT [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]). While a paradox between traditional measures and new emerging quality metrics poses a threat to the current mode of institutional governance, it is imperative to explore if universities are triggered to respond to it in a more resilient manner. The difference between this paper and others and its contribution to higher education is that emerging quality metrics become a driving force to drive system and institutional transformation. Therefore, this paper aims to explore actions taken by Taiwan's universities listed in THE Impact Ranking 2022 in response to the emerging sustainability metrics developed by global rankings and national accreditation. Furthermore, the purposes and strategies adopted by Taiwanese universities to incorporate 'sustainability' into current institutional governance and related new initiatives are analysed. The challenges that universities encountered are discussed at the end of the paper. Based on the abovementioned, three research questions are addressed as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What measures did Taiwanese universities implement to reinforce their commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in response to new sustainability metrics developed by global rankings and national accreditation?</item> <p></p> <item> What goals and strategies did Taiwanese universities adopt to integrate 'sustainability' into their institutional governance and newly launched initiatives?</item> <p></p> <item> What challenges did Taiwanese universities encounter while they were implementing sustainability‐related initiatives?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186991653-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991653-4">Advancing Sustainability in Higher Education and Institutional Governance</hd> <p>According to the United Nations, the key concept of sustainability means literacy building, which would 'allow individuals to become deeply committed to building a sustainable future and assisting in making informed and effective decisions to this end' (United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref21">62</reflink>], 1) with target 4.7. Some literature highlighted that HEIs have been perceived as both drivers and change agents to develop people's sustainability mindset and lifelong habits in and from campuses and equipping young people with capabilities to build a sustainable future for themselves, their community and the nation (Ramakrishna [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref22">49</reflink>]; Savelyeva and Park [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref23">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Stensaker and Hermansen ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref24">56</reflink>]), there are two main objectives for universities to advance the SDGs, one is for self‐image building; and the other for strengthening competitive advantages. In essence, universities often emphasise their self‐image, academic duties and its relevance to mission, with a focus of social impacts, community engagement and global outreach. From a competitive advantage approach, universities are encouraged to align their educational offerings, research profiles and academic strengths with specific SDGs paralleling their features, resources, capacities (Albareda‐Tiana et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]; Carrillo‐Durán et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]; Filho et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]; Ho et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]; Stensaker and Hermansen [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref29">56</reflink>]). Therefore, it is of great social and economic importance that universities have 'their ability to fulfil their mission of providing high quality education and research effectively and efficiently' (Bleiklie et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>], 5). Additionally, the new metrics by global rankings and national accreditation drive universities to think about how to advance the SDGs in varying aspects within campus (Chambers and Walker [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]). In other words, more and more universities attempted to increase their reputation and public image by SDGs to attract students and gain pubic confidence. More importantly, it gives the university a stronger moral licence to operate by making its role in society more tangible.</p> <p>Given the fact that higher education providers are highly diverse in size, capacity and resources, several concerns have been addressed regarding whether there will be a common approach for them to embed the SDGs into institutional governance system, educational offerings and research initiatives (Mader and Rammel [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]; Ramakrishna [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref33">49</reflink>]; Stensaker and Hermansen [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]). Moreover, owing to existing rigid structures and lacking a mechanism for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and studies (HESI [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>]; Mader and Rammel [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref36">35</reflink>]), it becomes quite challenging and complex for universities to implement the SDGs in a comprehensive manner. As Ramakrishna argued that 'sustainability is a broad canvas covering several areas and aspects, and the sustainability solutions most often require expertise in multiple disciplines and interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approaches' ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref37">49</reflink>], 1). While SDGs implementation requires cross‐sectoral coordination, interdisciplinary collaborations and global connectivity, universities are challenged by how to empower administrative staff, engage academics and involve students in advancing the SDGs campus wide (Chambers and Walker 2015; Ramakrishna [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref38">49</reflink>]; Yeh [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref39">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study by Huisman and Stensaker ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>]) found that most HEIs' sustainability efforts have remained symbolic, not yet embedding it fully into teaching, research and innovation. The content of sustainability in curricula remains patchy, marginal and non‐existent in some disciplines, which led to a lack of interdisciplinary dialogues and research collaborations (Ramakrishna [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref41">49</reflink>]). A larger majority of universities could just engage in the environmental aspect related to 'greenwashing activities' such as promoting recycling, encouraging cycling and reducing air travel (Moon et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]; Yeh [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref43">67</reflink>]). Lakhno ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]) also argued that although sustainability reporting is a regular task for universities, it still lacks thoroughness in teaching, learning and research‐related areas. Therefore, it remained challenging for universities to incorporate sustainability initiatives into teaching, research and service values with a continuous commitment and lasting predispositions. However, this trend has been transforming universities into 'normal organisations', to revisit their mission and vision in order to be subject to the social expectations and accountability claims as other societal sectors (Bleiklie et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]; Lakhno [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-5">Emerging Metrics in Global Rankings and International Quality Assurance for Measuring Univers...</hd> <p>By highlighting the broader contributions of HEIs and their relevance to society, global rankings and QA agencies began to develop new metrics to assess university's performances such as third mission, sustainability, social impacts into existing metrics (Chambers and Walker [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref47">9</reflink>]; Compagnucci and Spigarelli [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]; Harvey and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]; HEEACT [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]; International Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education [INQAAHE] [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>]; Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]; Quacquarelli Symonds [QS] [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref53">48</reflink>]; Times Higher Education [THE] [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref54">58</reflink>]). For example, some multidimensional and interactive rankings relating to university's missions have been released, such as U‐Multirank World University Rankings in 2014 (U‐Multirank [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref55">60</reflink>]). Yet, due to methodological limitations and simplicity, it has been argued that it was more challenging for global rankings to include the scope of sustainability and SDGs into the metrics system (Huisman and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]; Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>]; Wolhuter [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref58">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>The growing importance of the SDGs is evident in their integration into policies, standards and strategies across sectors. In 2019, the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (THE impact ranking) were first published to measure the level of universities' relevance to 17 SDGs in terms of research, stewardship, outreach and teaching aspects. Participating institutions can identify the top three SDGs they perform highly. Unlike existing metrics, there is no minimum research requirement for institutional participation, and universities are encouraged to engage with the ranking voluntarily (THE [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref59">58</reflink>]). To date, the number of participating institutions in the THE impact ranking has grown from 467 to 1591 (Dilena [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref60">13</reflink>]). Following the THE Impact ranking, the first edition of the QS World University Sustainability Rankings was released in 2022; in contrast, universities are eligible to participate if they are listed in the top 500 QS University Ranking. Initially, environmental sustainability and social impact were selected as the two domains in the QS sustainability ranking (QS [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>]). In 2024, the new domain of governance with a set of 10 indicators was incorporated into the existing metrics.</p> <p>QA networks' commitment to sustainable development is increasingly apparent (INQAAHE [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref62">31</reflink>]). In 2019, the INQAAHE initiated a pilot project aiming at incorporating 'sustainability' into higher education QA frameworks. In total, 9 components and 28 indicators were identified, including <emph>governance and strategy, leadership and partnerships, quality strategy and processes, training and guidance, resources & funding, programmes, campus, students and employers and external quality assurance</emph>. It is expected that the sustainability framework would benefit 'from concrete local examples to illustrate what type of evidence or documentation is needed for the assessment criteria to be met' (INQAAHE [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref63">30</reflink>], 16). Moreover, institutional governance and the stakeholder engagement are highlighted as the gateway to a success of SDGs implementation. Table 1 has shown the new methodology and metrics by three global rankings and QA organisation.</p> <p>1 TABLE Sustainability metrics by global rankings and QA.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Time Higher Education</th><th align="center">QS</th><th align="center">INQAAHE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Publishing year</td><td align="center">2019</td><td align="center">2022</td><td align="center">2019</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Approach</td><td align="center">Voluntary participation</td><td align="center">Compulsory/listed on global ranking</td><td align="center">Pilot study</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Methodology</td><td align="center">University self‐reported data against per SDGsScaling the scores for all SDGs (the range is from 0 to 100)</td><td align="center">Based on Scopus and reputation data collected and country‐level data</td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>University self‐assessment report</p></list-item><list-item><p>Peer review</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number of participating institutions</td><td align="center">1590</td><td align="center">700</td><td align="center">95<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Standards and metrics</td><td align="center">17 SDGs (22%) and top three SDGs (each 26%) in the four domains: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Research</p></list-item><list-item><p>Stewardship</p></list-item><list-item><p>Outreach</p></list-item><list-item><p>Teaching</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Social impact (45%)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Environmental impact (45%)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Governance (10%)</p></list-item></list></td><td align="center"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Governance and strategy</p></list-item><list-item><p>Leadership and partnerships</p></list-item><list-item><p>Quality strategy and processes</p></list-item><list-item><p>Training and guidance</p></list-item><list-item><p>Resources and funding</p></list-item><list-item><p>Programmes</p></list-item><list-item><p>Campus</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students and employers</p></list-item><list-item><p>External quality assurance</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a This is the number of university members in the INQAAHE. But they did not directly take part in this pilot study. Instead, they were encouraged to apply the new metrics for internal quality assurance mechanism development.</p> <p>2 <emph>Source:</emph> Dilena ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]), INQAAHE ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]), QS ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref66">48</reflink>]) and THE ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>To summarise, global rankings and international QA organisations, are 'converting university educational, research, and community service potential into a contribution to global sustainable development' (Ho et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref68">24</reflink>], 685), which will involve leveraging the resources and capabilities of universities to advance sustainability goals on global and regional scales (Ho et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>]; Huisman and Stensaker [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-6">Conceptual Framework for Institutional Governance and SDGs Implementation Under NPM in Taiwan...</hd> <p>A high level of state regulation has been the prevailing governance model for higher education in Asia, including Taiwan (Chan and Yang [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]; Hou et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref72">27</reflink>]). As Shin ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref73">53</reflink>]) observed, 'this is particularly true for the state‐centered governance of East Asia' (p. 11), which aligns with van Vught and de Boer's ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref74">65</reflink>]) assertion that 'the state plays a pivotal role in establishing frameworks, objectives, and priorities' (p. 38). Rooted in the 1980s doctrine of economic efficiency and profit maximisation, neoliberalism has been increasingly applied to higher education in Taiwan to enhance efficiency and accountability (Chan and Yang [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref75">10</reflink>]; Springer et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref76">55</reflink>]). Over decades, Taiwan's government has enacted substantial higher education reforms to meet the shifting social, economic and educational needs of the state under the principles of neoliberalism and new public management (NPM) (Chan and Yang [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>]; Ferlie [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>]). For building a sustainable society, Taiwan's government began to drive new metrics system for measuring HEIs, which resulted in the 'institutional strategies and endeavours for quality enhancement & organizational development' (Leiber [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref79">34</reflink>], 25).</p> <p>The MOE in Taiwan is the highest administrative body responsible for national educational policymaking and implementation, with the aim of raising the overall quality of education and the nation's competitiveness (Ministry of Education, Taiwan [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref80">38</reflink>]). In response to the promotion of the SDGs, the <emph>National Sustainable Development Council</emph> of the Executive Yuan in Taiwan released the 'Taiwan Sustainable Development Goals' in December 2018, in which it identified six areas as core transformational actions for developing Taiwan as a sustainable society (National Council for Sustainable Development [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]). According to the national guidelines, the MOE included concept of 'sustainability' into the University Social Responsibility (USR) Project in 2019 (Ho et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref82">24</reflink>]; Ministry of Education, Taiwan [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref83">38</reflink>]) and requested university applicants to implement the 17 SDGs in a comprehensive manner, including community engagement, environmentally friendly campuses, industrial ties and promoting economic sustainability, health, food safety, cultural sustainability and other social practices (Center for University Social Responsibility [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref84">8</reflink>]). Since then, Taiwan's institutions have been supported in undertaking a structural transformation in order to demonstrate their capacity in sustainability related initiatives.</p> <p>Under the 2005 University Act, HEIs in Taiwan were required to be reviewed by national and local accreditors, and at the same time they were encouraged to demonstrate international competitiveness according to global ranking results (Hou [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref85">26</reflink>]). Starting in 2023, HEEACT, national accreditor, added 'social responsibility and sustainable development' as one of the four standards in the new cycle. Expectedly, Indicator 4.2 stated that 'institutions should be able to commit themselves to social responsibility in linking to institutional development plans' (HEEACT [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref86">22</reflink>], 38). Moreover, institutions are advised 'to align institutional strategies and practices with SDGs and integrate it into curriculum design, research and innovation activities' (HEEACT [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>], 39).</p> <p>In parallel with national accreditation, many universities in Taiwan were urged to pursue academic excellence via global rankings. This phenomenon has also become a key aspect of higher education policies for Taiwan government. Emergence of global Impact and Sustainability rankings have given non‐elite universities an opportunity to illustrate their efforts and commitment to SDGs. To update, 46 Taiwanese universities voluntarily participated the THE Impact Ranking and 10 were listed in the QS sustainability Ranking. As Stensaker and Hermansen ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref88">56</reflink>]) argued, SDGs have shifted the global discourses on sustainability into a dialogue with local context as national agenda, which 'provided HEIs with a new frame for legitimizing and presenting their priorities and practices' (p. 3). Based on the discussions above, and driven by national agenda and global competition, Taiwanese universities are expected to demonstrate accountability in SDG implementation, enhance competitiveness and strengthen institutional capacity. Hence, it is imperative to explore whether the new metrics by global rankings and national accreditation would lead to a more diversified, accountable and quality system in Taiwan higher education. Thus, a conceptual framework for the SDGs implementation in the study was constructed based on relevance to global discourse, system transformation, and enabling a par to paradigm shift as follows (Figure 1).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/D85/01jul25/hequ70031-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="hequ70031-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 A conceptual framework for the SDGs implementation in Taiwan higher education." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991653-8">Methodology</hd> <p>This study adopted a qualitative approach via document analysis and semi‐structured interviews. According to Bowen ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>]), document analysis is 'a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents, including both printed and electronic (computer‐based and Internet‐transmitted) material' (p. 27). By examining the data and documents selected, the researcher needs to 'elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge' (Bowen [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref90">6</reflink>], 27). First of all, three categories of documents were collected from international organisations, governments and QA agencies and 46 selected Taiwanese universities listed in the THE Impact ranking 2022 (Table 2). To answer the first research question 46 Taiwanese universities' performance and engagement at 2022 THE global Impact ranking and QS employability ranking were initially analysed. Second, the study examined whether universities published strategic plans and sustainability reports by visiting the 'strategy' and 'sustainability', 'sustainable development' pages of the universities' websites, as well as to explore if related sustainability goals were identified in institutional strategic reports in response to national policy and accreditation standards. Third, this study employed NVivo 12 Plus (QSR International), a qualitative analysis tool, to conduct thematic analysis and identify patterns in the documentation through manual annotation. The keywords 'SDGs', 'sustainable development', and 'sustainability' were established as nodes to classify emerging themes and reveal semantic similarities. Word frequency percentage analysis was used to interpret the identified usages within the documents.</p> <p>2 TABLE List of documents collected from international organisations, government, national accreditor and 46 universities.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">International organisations</td><td align="center">THE ranking methodology and resultsQS ranking methodology and resultsINQAAHE GGP guidelinesINQAAHE ISGs principlesINQAAHE Proposal of indicators to embed the SDGs into Institutional Quality Assessment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Government and national accreditor</td><td align="center">Executive Yuan's Taiwan Sustainable Development GoalsMOE's University Social Responsibility (USR) ProgrammeUniversity ActHEEACT Articles of Endowed FoundationHEEACT INQAAHE GGP reportHEEACT programme accreditation handbookHEEACT institutional accreditation handbook</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Universities</td><td align="center">Institutional strategic plansSustainability reportsAccreditation reports</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Source:</emph> Authors.</p> <p>Subsequently, semi‐structured interviews were conducted to answer research questions 2 and 3. In order to solicit experts' insights and provide validated judgements, the knowledgeable interviewees were selected by purposive sampling approach. Purposeful sampling is widely used in qualitative research for 'the identification and selection of information‐rich cases related to the phenomenon of interest' (Palinkas et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref91">45</reflink>], 533). There are some limitations, such as criterion sampling, a limited number of participants, irresistible interventions and lacking randomisation, etc. (Patton [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref92">47</reflink>]; Morse and Niehaus [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref93">40</reflink>]). To remedy methodological constrains and gain varying stakeholders' perspectives, four types of interviewees are selected, including university administrators, global rankers, senior QA administrators and employers. First, the study chose university representatives from public research‐oriented, private teaching oriented, religious affiliated universities and universities of technology respectively according to their experiences in university management and QA. The selected university participants had at least 5 years' experience in higher education management as practitioners and ever served as external reviewers of institutional accreditation. The employer participants who were the heads of sustainability office of the companies ever served as external reviewers of national accreditation, and taught at universities. The participants from global rankings and national accreditors were involved in the SDGs metrics development. The consent form was signed by all participants prior to the interview. Between July and August 2023, in total, 21 participants provided their opinions through both face‐to‐face semi‐structured interviews and electronic email, including five university presidents, nine senior top QA administrators and five experts from global rankings and national accreditors; and two employers from IT and Manufacturing companies. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and used as one of the major sources of data analysis. To facilitate data analysis, and avoid preconceived ideas or bias, the participants from three categories were coded according to their higher education experiences and backgrounds (Table 3).</p> <p>3 TABLE Codes of participants by characteristics and backgrounds.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Global rankers and QA agencies</th><th align="center">Employers</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">QA Director in Accreditation Division</td><td align="center">Q1</td><td align="center">General Manager</td><td align="center">E1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">QA Director in research and internationalisation division</td><td align="center">Q2</td><td align="center">Vice President of Sustainability Office</td><td align="center">E2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Executive Director of QA agency</td><td align="center">Q3</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Senior researcher in global ranking</td><td align="center">R1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Senior administrator in global ranking</td><td align="center">R2</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">University representatives</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vice president of University of Technology</td><td align="center">UT1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Associate Dean of University of Technology</td><td align="center">UT2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Former University President (religious)</td><td align="center">UC1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">University President (religious)</td><td align="center">UC2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dean of Office of Sustainability</td><td align="center">UC3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">University President (private)</td><td align="center">UP1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dean of Office of Quality Assurance</td><td align="center">UP2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Director of Strategies Division in Office Sustainability</td><td align="center">UP3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Director of Governance and Planning Division in Office Sustainability</td><td align="center">UP4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Former President of Research university</td><td align="center">UR1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">President of Research university</td><td align="center">UR2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Assistant Vice President (Research U)</td><td align="center">UR3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dean of Office of Research and Development</td><td align="center">UR4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Senior staff of Office of Research and Development (Research U)</td><td align="center">UR5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Abbreviations: UC, religious affiliated universities; UP, private universities; UR, research‐oriented universities; UT, technological and vocational type.</p> <p>Based on research questions, conceptual framework and three international QA experts' consultancies, the interview questions were categorised into five major parts with a total number of eight designated sub‐questions, including institutional strategies to SDGs implementation; stakeholder engagement and administrative support; use of sustainability metrics from global rankings and national accreditor; and challenges for SDGs implementation. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and transcripts used as one of the major sources of data analysis. Based on the initial findings of document analysis, thematic coding across transcripts was used for recurring subthemes, patterns or categories (Bazeley and Jackson [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref94">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order to integrate diverse data, the empirical analysis was conducted in sequential phases. First, the Miles and Huberman ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref95">36</reflink>]) method was employed for meaning generation and verification. This method—identifying patterns and themes, clustering data into categories, establishing logical chains of evidence and ensuring conceptual coherence—effectively reduces large volumes of qualitative data (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref96">11</reflink>]). Second, initial findings from document analysis and transcripts were cross‐verified to enhance reliability, with inconsistencies flagged for further discussion. Third, verified and consistent data directly informed the study's key findings and conclusions. To minimise subjectivity and strengthen validity, data triangulation techniques were applied, enabling the confirmation of identified themes across multiple data sources (Patton [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref97">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-9">Major Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991653-10">An Analysis of 46 Universities' Sustainability Advancement at Global Ranking and National Acc...</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991653-11">30% Taiwanese Universities Have Participated in Global Rankings</hd> <p>According to the 2022 THE impact ranking, there were 187 institutions in Asia (the total number of universities in Asia is 6278) (Universities in Asia [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref98">63</reflink>]) listed in the top 500 compared to 172 in Europe (the total number of universities in Europe is 2692) (Figure 2) (Universities in Europe [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref99">64</reflink>]). The top three SDGs selected by the top 500 institutions were as follows: <emph>Goal 17: Partnership for the goals</emph>; <emph>Goal 3: Good health and well‐being</emph>; <emph>and Goal 4: Quality education as well as Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities</emph>.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/D85/01jul25/hequ70031-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="hequ70031-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Top 500 universities on THE Impact Ranking 2022." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In Taiwan, there were total of 151 HEIs (Ministry of Education [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref100">37</reflink>]) and 46 of them were listed on the THE impact ranking 2022, including 27 public and 19 private universities. The top three SDGs that public universities chose were 'Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure', 'Goal 7: Affordable and Clean energy' and 'Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities'. In contrast, the top three SDGs goals that private universities selected were 'Goal 4: Quality Education', 'Goal 3: Good Health and Well‐being' and 'Goal 10: Reduced Inequality'. Specifically, no university chose 'Goal 1: No poverty'.</p> <p>When it came to QS sustainability ranking 2023, the largest proportion of institutions was in Europe 292, followed by North America 161 and Asia 159 (Figure 3).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/D85/01jul25/hequ70031-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="hequ70031-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Top 700 universities in QS sustainability ranking 2023." /> </p> <p></p> <p>There were 11 Taiwanese universities listed in the top QS 700. In general, Taiwan's universities performed better in the domain of '<emph>environmental impact</emph>' than in '<emph>social impact</emph>'. Examining Taiwan's university performances, it was found that there were inconsistent results between two rankings due to different methodologies. For example, National Cheng Kung University was ranked 33 on THE impact rankings 2022, but it was dropped to 201–220 in QS; National Taiwan University was 37 on THE impact rankings 2022, but 69 in QS (Table 4).</p> <p>4 TABLE Comparison between THE and QS ranking results in Taiwan's university performance.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">No.</th><th align="center">QS sustainability rankings</th><th align="center">University</th><th align="center">Environmental impact rank</th><th align="center">Social impact rank</th><th align="center">THE impact rankings</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">69</td><td align="center">National Taiwan University (NTU)</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">212</td><td align="center">37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">201–220</td><td align="center">National Cheng Kung University (NCKU)</td><td align="center">108</td><td align="center">444</td><td align="center">33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">281–300</td><td align="center">National Taiwan Normal University</td><td align="center">223</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">301–400</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">361–380</td><td align="center">National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University</td><td align="center">430</td><td align="center">444</td><td align="center">101–200</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">381–400</td><td align="center">National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taiwan Tech)</td><td align="center">251</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">401–600</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">401–450</td><td align="center">National Central University</td><td align="center">271</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">601–800</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">401–450</td><td align="center">National Tsing Hua University</td><td align="center">408</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">201–300</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="center">501–550</td><td align="center">National Chung Hsing University</td><td align="center">415</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">601–800</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="center">501–550</td><td align="center">National Sun Yat‐sen University</td><td align="center">290</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">401–600</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="center">501–550</td><td align="center">National Taipei University of Technology</td><td align="center">248</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">301–400</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="center">601+</td><td align="center">Chung Yuan Christian University</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">501+</td><td align="center">601–800</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Source:</emph> THE ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref101">58</reflink>]) and QS ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref102">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-14">Majority of Taiwanese Universities Attempted to Incorporate Sustainability Initiatives Into I...</hd> <p>In order to comply with the new cycle of national accreditation, 46 universities are required to respond to the SDGs metrics immediately. Visiting universities' websites, 46 institutions had institutional strategic plans in place; and 44 of them published sustainability reports. Twenty three institutions have either set up either the SDGs office or formed a Task force for university social responsibility which manages SDGs implementation. Twenty eight institutions have successfully incorporated the SDGs into institutional strategic plans and developed the matrix between strategic plan and SDGs. For instance, the strategic plan of Asia University, a leading private institution, indicated that 'the university considers the smart era of Industry 4.0, the spirit of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the national productivity 4.0 plan, and incorporates environmental and social care into the direction of university development' (Asia University [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>], 4). A matrix between strategic plan and SDGs was presented in the report as well. The insights from the interviews in this study also highlighted that it was imperative to incorporate the SDGs into their institutional development plan. As one university president stated 'the SDGs became our education vision, part of our mission'. Therefore, we incorporated the SDGs into our entire philosophy of institutional governance, rather than adjusting our mission and vision to fit the SDGs for the sake of change (UC2).</p> <p>While analysing the level of incorporation of curriculum reform, research innovation and university social responsibility programme into 44 SDGs reports by applying NVivo, it was found that the coverage of coded references was 2.87% in curriculum, 2.66% in research and 3.74% in USR respectively. Not to our surprise, top public research universities paid greater attention to research with a high ratio of coverage 9.29%; in contrast, private university and religious affiliated universities put an emphasis over USR (Table 5).</p> <p>5 TABLE Level of incorporation of curriculum, research and USR into SDGs reports.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Curriculum (%)</th><th align="center">Curriculum (references coded)</th><th align="center">Research (%)</th><th align="center">Research (references coded)</th><th align="center">USR (%)</th><th align="center">USR (references coded)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Public</td><td align="center">3.39</td><td align="center">45</td><td align="center">3.45</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">3.15</td><td align="center">39</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Top public research</td><td align="center">4.42</td><td align="center">38</td><td align="center">9.29</td><td align="center">72</td><td align="center">0.93</td><td align="center">20</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Non top public research</td><td align="center">3.19</td><td align="center">46</td><td align="center">4.47</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">3.57</td><td align="center">42</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Private</td><td align="center">2.20</td><td align="center">38</td><td align="center">1.62</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">4.51</td><td align="center">40</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Technology</td><td align="center">2.80</td><td align="center">53</td><td align="center">1.45</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">1.94</td><td align="center">42</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Religious</td><td align="center">1.51</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">1.23</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">4.99</td><td align="center">32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Average</td><td align="center">2.87</td><td align="center">42</td><td align="center">2.66</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">3.74</td><td align="center">39</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note:</emph> One university just published a university social responsibility report in 2021 but not the SDGs report. The other university is still in the process.</p> <p>The specific statements of the sustainability reports demonstrated the areas that universities are committed to. For instance, the SDGs report of Tamkang University highlighted the university's commitment for lifelong learning, social responsibility, and open educational source by indicating 'through 'Open Course YouTube Channel', it provides free general and lecture courses, making higher education resources widely available to the public' ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref104">57</reflink>], 15). As to sustainability‐related research, National Taiwan University claimed that 'NTU carried out 3,413 research projects in 2021, 780 of which were sustainability‐related, involving 552 faculty members, researchers and project‐based staff' ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref105">43</reflink>], 9). National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU), a top research institution, listed the number of publications related to 17 SDGs and social impacts in the sustainability report (NYCU [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref106">44</reflink>]). Soochow University acknowledged its University Social Responsibility (USR) initiatives in the report, encompassing service‐learning programmes, socially inclusive policies and strategic efforts to foster sustainable rural and community engagement (Soochow University [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref107">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-15">Purposes and Strategies for SDGs Implementation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991653-16">Competitive Advantage Is the Key Reason Driving Universities for SDGs Implementation</hd> <p>In general, most universities considered competitive advantage as the main cause for SDGs implementation, particularly research universities. Interestingly, few religious institutions with a strong self‐imaging tendency still expected to promote their international competitiveness by two sustainability rankings (UR2, UR3, UT1, UT2, UC3, UP2), which is consistent with the opinions of QA and ranking respondents.</p> <p>Many of them have set up the SDGs office, allocate funding for faculty members student support. They also take advantage of global rankings to demonstrate their efforts to SDGs achievement (Q1).</p> <p>Yet, not all universities had ambitions for achieving the SDGs as top research universities and long history private universities did (Q2 and Q3).</p> <p>Moreover, emergence of the new sustainability metrics by global rankings and accreditors started to impact institutional governance, which demonstrated that Taiwan's institutions are aware that a full implementation of the SDGs should depend on a favourable institutional governance and a long‐term institutional strategic plan in order to build their strengths and resilience in sustainability as the results shown above. For instance, National Cheng Kung University highlighted that 'the annual Impact Ranking is a benchmark for our planning and governance on the campus. Additionally, SDGs help us to establish a more comprehensive framework, measure the results, and confirm our actions and investments' (NCKU [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref108">41</reflink>], 1). As a religious affiliated institution, Tunghai University promoted itself as 'top one among Non‐medical Private Universities in Taiwan in 2023 THE Impact Rankings' on the website (Tunghai University [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref109">59</reflink>], 1). Both universities highlighted that global rankings could showcase their global recognition for their outstanding research and teaching in promoting sustainability (NCKU [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref110">41</reflink>]; Tunghai University [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref111">59</reflink>]). As one ranking expert observed that,</p> <p>This is already happening. We expect universities to respond to sustainability pressures in a range of ways, and at their own pace. For example, nationally‐focused institutions may take this task on more rapidly than global ones. But we do know that universities planning strategies or setting KPIs are already responding to our indicators (R1).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-17">The Common Strategy Is to Align USR Project With General Education Curriculum. Yet, the Appro...</hd> <p>Driven by global trends, the Taiwanese government has recognised the expanding role of higher education institutions (HEIs). In 2019, it launched the University Social Responsibility (USR) project to encourage HEIs to actively support local development. To integrate the SDGs on campus, HEIs were advised to leverage USR projects to strengthen community engagement and involve students through the core curriculum (Center for University Social Responsibility [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref112">8</reflink>]; Executive Yuan [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref113">15</reflink>]). Many of them attempted to align the core value of USR projects with objectives in the general education curriculum. As the private university representatives highlighted that,</p> <p>To spread the SDGs concept, we incorporated USR project in one required course in general education titled the 'Freshmen in P university, Seniors in Tamsui, Creating a Great Future Together' (UP3 & UP4).</p> <p>The General Education Center has established a section called the 'Sustainability Academy', where various courses related to 17 SDGs are offered (UC3).</p> <p>In any case, the course template for SDGs serves as a common ground as the first step to link your course into sustainability (UP3).</p> <p>Yet, there was a slight difference in implementation approaches among universities due to their capacity and features. Teaching‐oriented institutions tended to convey SDGs principles in alignment with curriculum reform. In contrast, research‐oriented universities were inclined to link the SDGs with research activities and to apply it as one of the indicators for teacher's performance assessment, which is aligned with the results of SDGs report analysis. Moreover, faculty members were provided tangible rewards if they published papers related to SDGs.</p> <p>We incorporate SDGs into the research incentive system and encourage faculties to undertake SDGs related research. For example, if the teacher can explain the linkage between contribution of the publication and SDGs, teacher academic performance will be evaluated highly (UT1).</p> <p>In order to implement sustainability all over campus, the key approach is to connect SDGs to research and development (UR4).</p> <p>Still, research‐oriented universities (UR1, UR2, UR3) felt pressured to demonstrate their academic competitiveness and social impacts via global measures,</p> <p>We don't necessarily have to participate in these global rankings. But in case most universities do, it would be problematic if we can't demonstrate our strengths and academic competitiveness through international measures (UR2).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-18">All University Respondents Highly Agreed That It Was Quite Significant to Partner With Employ...</hd> <p>Furthermore, insights from the interviews in this study showed that universities advocated that SDGs had served as a bridge that facilitated the connection between universities and industry (UP1, UC2, UC3). Through the integration of respective strengths and needs from both sides, the partnership between HEIs and the industry was strengthened. Several university respondents put an emphasis on the value of the partnership for student employability enhancement and their SDGs competencies acquiring (UR1, UR3, UR4). The representatives from employers also advocated a bilateral partnership between industry and HEIs, which would lead to innovations and entrepreneurship in higher education (E1, E2).</p> <p>We collaborated with and also learned from steel industry to promote health education in the rural areas in ASEAN region. Through our cooperation, we jointly involved in promoting quality of education in the rural area. The industry donates the equipment the schools need, and then we provide educational training (UC3).</p> <p>My university collaborated with E. Sun Financial Holding Company at the Future Pavilion. The focus of talent development was on students, engaging them in issues related to SDGs, and this initiative led to the formation of numerous student‐led startup companies (UR3 & UR4).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-19">Strong Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Culture Building Are the Gateway...</hd> <p>The study found that HEIs with fewer obstacles in SDG implementation were inclined to have a strong leadership, be equipped with sufficient resources and be capable of engaging faculty members and students in various ways. There was a high level of agreement that effective communication with HEI stakeholders would lead to a positive impact (UR1, UT1, UP2). Moreover, university respondents indicated that the breadth and depth of SDG implementation should depend on sustainability culture building.</p> <p>Since AI plus SDGs is a university‐wide initiative, HR office conducts several educational training workshops for faculty members and students and communicate with them actively (UP2).</p> <p>We hope to engage stakeholders to think how to adopt SDGs into their daily activities and finally embed sustainability culture within every corner of the campus. Rather than seeing it as a policy driven initiative, it might be more appropriate to view it as a cultural development (UR1).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-20">Challenges Taiwanese Universities Are Encountering</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991653-21">Data Accuracy and Reliability Are the Big Concern</hd> <p>First, the study revealed that most university interviewees agreed highly on the difficulties in SDGS data collection and its reliability. Given that SDGs data cross different sectors and organisational units, it was very challenging for universities to identify the specific KPIs related to education, impact and governance dimensions as well as to ensure data completeness, accuracy and quality. As the university respondents were worried,</p> <p>The problem here is, many of the data required are actually incorrect. As one teacher mentioned, no one knows how to fill them out because he is not told clearly what to do. Even the responsible staff doesn't understand it (UP4).</p> <p>You clearly know that the data you are collecting is unreliable, yet why university leadership still involves so many administrative personnel in filling out this thing. It will cause confusion in university governance administration (UT2).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-22">A Tracking System Under Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) Mechanism Is Still in Process</hd> <p>Concurrently, a tracking mechanism for SDGs performance has not yet been established and integrated into IQA mechanism in most universities. This highlighted that it was imperative to commission a professional office to develop SDGs measures in order to track university's performance on a regular basis. However, few universities realised that it was paramount to integrate institutional resources, governmental funded programmes and SDGs initiatives into IQA mechanism in order to maximise university capacity as well as to demonstrate its accountability.</p> <p>How to incorporate SDGs into quality assurance mechanism, measuring the effectiveness of the USR, or tracking and follow‐up, I am unable to answer because the data for these aspects is not available at the moment (UC3).</p> <p>Now quality assurance office conducts regular qualitative and quantitative assessments of key performance indicators, and self‐assessment reports are presented during executive meetings to facilitate tangible improvements (UP2).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-23">It Is Harder to Undertake Intersectoral Coordination and Negotiation</hd> <p>Furthermore, the mechanism of coordination and negotiations across sectors and offices, and departments was not fully built yet. Due to the distributed responsibilities under the university organisational structure, different sectors and units have their ways to interpret SDGs concepts and content, which would result in impediments to actual implementation and willingness for data sharing.</p> <p>Program accreditation was undertaken by QA office, and sustainability report was written by USR office. As a matter of fact, the linkage between self‐assessment report and sustainability report is quite weak (UP4).</p> <p>Even it is just a simple issue, it still requires a long communication process and involve greater negotiations. For example, General Affairs Office has some carbon data, but other data is in Accounting Office (UR3).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-24">Faculty and Student Engagement Remain Limited</hd> <p>Although numerous national and institutional related SDGs and USR initiatives have been launched for a while, it was challenging to build a comprehensive SDG awareness among faculty members and students and even to measure their engagement. All university representatives agreed that there remained a considerable journey ahead to ensure widespread understanding among all stakeholders on campus. Additionally, the employers acknowledged that students were not familiar with the concept of SDGs. Students just realised that SDGs were important, but they did not know exactly what SDGs were all about (E1& E2).</p> <p>The most challenging part to implement sustainability is how we can make every teacher aware of it; it cannot be left to just a small group of people to handle (UR5).</p> <p>Even though I am the key person who is actively involved in SDGs, I find it challenging to ensure if my students actually engage with SDGs in courses or other activities. The harder thing is, they may not know how to connect SDGs to the broader context (UP4).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-25">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186991653-26">Would New Sustainability Metrics Just Trigger a Severe Academic Competition or Lead to a Para...</hd> <p>Impacted by the UN SDGs, global and local assessors were pressured to align the new metrics with the core values of sustainability in global higher education (THE [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref114">58</reflink>]; QS [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref115">48</reflink>]; INQAAHE [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref116">31</reflink>]). Traditional methodologies by global rankings and accreditation that have brought much criticism due to one‐size fits all approach were changed and adjusted in response to the need of varying stakeholders in higher education and related to global discourse (Fadeeva et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref117">16</reflink>]; INQAAHE [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref118">31</reflink>]). In particular, emerging dimensions—third mission, community engagement, distance education, etc. are not fully reflected in the existing metrics. As one global ranking expert indicated that the new metrics 'could support and encourage universities to commit to doing more in terms of sustainability by developing a global framework for measurement and importantly provide a mechanism to be able to demonstrate their work' (R2).</p> <p>The study demonstrates that the main purpose for most universities in Taiwan to advance sustainability tended to be for competitive advantage rather than just for self‐image building. Instead of moving into a quality education system, as yet, it is being argued again that if the sustainability metrics continue to entail another academic competition among universities under neoliberalism (Hou et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref119">28</reflink>]). In response to the evolving academic landscape, some universities of technology and private universities in Taiwan have made significant efforts to enhance their competitiveness, such as National Taipei University of Technology and Chung Yuan Christian University. On a positive note, sustainability rankings and accreditation are driving universities to be more efficient, accountable and resilient in institutional governance. Seemingly, SDGs as a change agent for institutional transformation that evoke positive implications for research, curriculum and university social responsibility (Ramakrishna [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref120">49</reflink>]; Savelyeva and Park [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref121">51</reflink>]) are gradually leading to new metrics for measuring universities in Taiwan. Yet, it will take a longer time to assess the extent to which these new metrics acted as a facilitator to a paradigm shift in higher education or an accelerator to more academic competitions among universities.</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-27">Would SDGs Just Become a Moral Symbol due to Limited Engagement and Data Inaccuracy?</hd> <p>The study found that the new SDGs metrics are predominantly guiding universities in Taiwan to prioritise SDGs in institutional development and management. Influenced by global rankings and national accreditation, most universities swiftly incorporate the SDGs into institutional strategic plans and undergone a process of structural transformation. Yet, national accreditor was still worried that the transformation may just stay on the managerial level, not going deeper at academic programmes, though universities were encouraged to publish their SDGs reports (Interviewee Q3). Moreover, it is problematic to measure the effectiveness and impact of the SDGs while data reliability is being questioned. Furthermore, limited engagement of faculty members and students would likely make SDGs just a moral embrace, driving the rise of symbolism among institutions, which was quite consistent with the findings addressed by Huisman and Stensaker ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref122">29</reflink>]), Park and Savelyeva ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref123">46</reflink>]) and Yeh ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref124">67</reflink>]). These challenges are paralleling with the statement by one research university president, 'we cannot continue to stay in the realm of moral symbol, only expressing the value that we believe. We should take actions and implicate it to the whole world' (UR1).</p> <p>Notably, achieving the SDGs requires collaboration that transcends sectoral barriers (Filho et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref125">18</reflink>]; Moon et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref126">39</reflink>]). If HEIs lack the necessary capacity for such efforts, they will be led into a 'structural trap' (Savelyeva [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref127">50</reflink>]). Subsequently, varying stakeholders would be discouraged to engage the SDGs initiatives beyond conventional academic circles. This scenario is in parallel with what Stensaker and Hermansen ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref128">56</reflink>]) argued, 'whether all universities have the ability and capacity to be responsible and responsive actors in an ever‐changing environment remains a more open question' ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref129">56</reflink>], 4).</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-28">Conclusion</hd> <p>The study demonstrates that SDGs implementation is formulated not from a single aspect but encompasses administrative supports, cross‐sectoral coordination and engagement of faculty members and students. Strategically, university leaders would view these challenges as opportunities to undertake institutional transformation, and at the same time, to add core values in their capacity building by learning global ranking metrics and national accreditation standards. Hence, competitive advantage is the key reason driving universities for SDGs implementation. Furthermore, it was found that many Taiwan's universities take advantage of external forces to conduct system changes, such as creation of new values through roles re‐identification, integration of selected SDGs into institutional strategic plans and curriculum reform, as well as alliance with their foreign partner schools and employers, etc. The common strategy carried out by most universities is to align university social responsibility project with general education curriculum. Moreover, SDGs data reliability, internal quality assurance (IQA) mechanism establishment, intersectoral coordination and faculty and student engagement are the key challenges for SDGs implementation in Taiwan's universities. As Ramakrishna ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref130">49</reflink>]) stated, 'sustainability solutions are dynamic for several reasons' (p. 4), universities in Taiwan have adopted specific strategies for changes and contribute to a more sustainable campus due to their capacity and mission in the study.</p> <p>The aim of the SDGs metrics is to break away from the traditional measurement concept in higher education. Subsequently, the focus on diversity, relevance and inclusiveness in the new metrics not only responds to the current global agendas for sustainability, but also paves the way for a foreseeably sustainable community (Albareda‐Tiana et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref131">1</reflink>]; Bleiklie et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref132">5</reflink>]). Most importantly, it should be acknowledged that the SDGs metrics are transforming a very research‐oriented metrics system to reconnection of social needs and eventually lead universities to rethink core values of higher education in the post‐pandemic era. However, they still need to realise that critical issues and challenges would continue to disrupt the positive impacts which have been brought into the sustainable globe. Therefore, engagement of varying stakeholders in higher education which will likely lead to a paradigm shift is considered as the key element to the success of SDGs implementation on campus.</p> <p>From a practical perspective, this study offers new insights into the development of sustainability metrics for universities in Taiwan and across the broader Asian context. However, this study is constrained by its reliance on documentary review and interviews. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of SDG implementation in higher education, future research should incorporate a large‐scale survey assessing faculty and student perceptions of its actual impact. As the reminder from one President of Taiwan's research university indicated,</p> <p>I really hope that we can move away from the era of casually talking about SDGs sooner. We've talked too much, and the biggest challenge with SDGs is that our answers are still lacking. Without engaging our faculty members and students, we haven't really found clear and quick solutions to overcome the current challenges. This is an aspect where we need to continue making mutual efforts and striving forward.</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-29">Author Contributions</hd> <p> <bold>Angela Yung Chi Hou:</bold> conceptualization, methodology, supervision, investigation, funding acquisition, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. <bold>Ying Chen:</bold> methodology, software, formal analysis. <bold>Arianna Fang Yu Lin:</bold> methodology, formal analysis. <bold>Edward Hung Cheng Su:</bold> project administration, data curation. <bold>Kyle Zi‐Wei Zhou:</bold> project administration, data curation. <bold>Christopher Hong‐Yi Tao:</bold> project administration, data curation.</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-30">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The Research has been approved by NCCU IRB No. 2202‐06‐I073.</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-31">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186991653-32">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0186991653-33"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref25" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This work was supported by National Science and Technology Council.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186991653-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Albareda‐Tiana, S., S. Vidal‐Raméntol, and M. Fernández‐Morilla. 2018. " Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals at University Level." International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 19, no. 3 : 473 – 497. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe‐05‐2017‐0069.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> APEC. 2023. Sustainable Development. Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation. https://<ulink href="http://www.apec.org/groups/other‐groups/sustainable‐development">www.apec.org/groups/other‐groups/sustainable‐development</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref103" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Asia University. 2023. "Institutional Strategic Plan." https://ird.asia.edu.tw/xhr/archive/download?file=67281dea8ccb5c253093514d.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref94" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bazeley, P., and K. Jackson. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis With NVivo (Second). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bleiklie, I., J. Enders, and B. Lepori. 2017. " Setting the Stage—Theory and Research Questions." In Managing Universities: Policy and Organizational Change From a Western European Comparative Perspective, edited by I. Bleiklie, J. Enders, and B. Lepori, 3 – 29. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐53865‐5_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref89" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bowen, G. A. 2009. " Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method." Qualitative Research Journal 9, no. 2 : 27 – 40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carrillo‐Durán, M. V., T. B. Sánchez, and M. García. 2024. " University Social Responsibility and Sustainability. How They Work on the SDGS and How They Communicate Them on Their Websites." Higher Education Quarterly 78, no. 3 : 586 – 607. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12470.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref84" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Center for University Social Responsibility. 2019. "University Social Responsibility Projects." Taipei, MOE. https://usr.moe.gov.tw/tw/about/usr.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref31" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chambers, D. P., and C. Walker. 2016. " Sustainability as a Catalyst for Change in Universities: New Roles to Meet New Challenges." In Challenges in Higher Education for Sustainability, edited by J. P. Davim and W. L. Filho, 1 – 15. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐23705‐3_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, S. J., and C. Y. Yang. 2018. " Governance Styles in Taiwanese Universities: Features and Effects." International Journal of Educational Development 63 : 29 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Compagnucci, L., and F. Spigarelli. 2020. " The Third Mission of the University: A Systematic Literature Review on Potentials and Constraints." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 161 : 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dilena, S. 2023. "THE Impact Rankings Masterclass: South‐East Asia [Conference Presentation]." THE Campus Live SE Asia 2023, Manila, Philippines.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eaton, J. 2013. " Rankings, New Accountability Tools and Quality Assurance." In Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses, edited by P. T. M. Marope, P. J. Wells, and E. Hazelkorn, 129 – 140. UNESCO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Executive Yuan. 2022. "Promoting University Social Responsibility: Local Engagement and Talent Development." https://<ulink href="http://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/9fd14ac8‐4814‐4b69‐90e3‐726e2641be39">www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/9fd14ac8‐4814‐4b69‐90e3‐726e2641be39</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fadeeva, Z., L. Galkute, C. Mader, and G. Scott. 2014. " Assessment for Transformation—Higher Education Thrives in Redefining Quality Systems." In Sustainable Development and Quality Assurance in Higher Education, vol. 1–22. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137459145_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferlie, E. 2010. " Public Management 'Reform' Narratives and the Changing Organisation of Primary Care." London Journal of Primary Care 3, no. 2 : 76 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17571472.2010.11493306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Filho, W. L., I. R. Abubakar, M. C. Mifsud, et al. 2023. " Governance in the Implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education: Global Trends." In Environment, Development and Sustainability. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668‐023‐03278‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, L., and B. Stensaker. 2022. " Researching Quality Assurance: Accomplishments and Future Agendas." In A Research Agenda for Global Higher Education, 81 – 95. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800376069.00010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hazelkorn, E. 2019. " Rankings and the Public Good Role of Higher Education." International Higher Education 99, no. 99 : 7 – 9. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2019.99.11645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT). 2022. "Annual Report." https://<ulink href="http://www.heeact.edu.tw/media/20415/2022‐annual‐report.pdf">www.heeact.edu.tw/media/20415/2022‐annual‐report.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT). 2023. Third Cycle of Institutional Accreditation Handbook (2023–2025). HEEACT. https://<ulink href="http://www.heeact.edu.tw/media/20065/third‐cycle‐of‐institutional‐accreditation‐handbook‐2023‐2025.pdf">www.heeact.edu.tw/media/20065/third‐cycle‐of‐institutional‐accreditation‐handbook‐2023‐2025.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI). 2017. Higher Education Institutions—Key Drivers of the Sustainable Development Goals. HESI. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/17043HESI_Summary_2017.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, S. S. H., H. C. Lin, C. C. Hsieh, and R. J. C. Chen. 2022. " Importance and Performance of SDGs Perception Among College Students in Taiwan." Asia Pacific Education Review 23 : 683 – 693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564‐022‐09787‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou, A. Y. C. 2021. " Book Review: Review of Research Handbook on University Rankings: Theory, Methodology, Influence and Impact." International Journal of Chinese Education 10, no. 3 : 1 – 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/22125868211063001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou, A. Y. C. 2023. " Did Taiwan Academic Excellence Initiatives Build World‐Class Universities? Governance, Funding Schemes, and Policy Shifts." In Academic Star Wars, 107 – 128. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14601.003.0009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou, A. Y.‐C., T. Chiang, S.‐J. Chan, et al. 2021. " Historical Development of Higher Education in Taiwan From Past to Present." In Higher Education in Taiwan, 3 – 25. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐15‐4554‐2_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou, A. Y. C., C. Hill, Z. Hu, et al. 2020. " What is Driving Taiwan Government for Policy Change in Higher Education After the Year of 2016 – in Search of Egalitarianism or Pursuit of Academic Excellence? " Studies in Higher Education 47, no. 2 : 338 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1744126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huisman, J., and B. Stensaker. 2022. " Performance Governance and Management in Higher Education Revisited: International Developments and Perspectives." Quality in Higher Education 28, no. 1 : 106 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1951457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education [INQAAHE]. 2019. Proposal of Indicators to Embed the SDGs Into Institutional Quality Assessment. INQAAHE. https://<ulink href="http://www.inqaahe.org/blog/proposal‐indicators‐embed‐sustainable‐development‐goals‐institutional‐quality‐assessment">www.inqaahe.org/blog/proposal‐indicators‐embed‐sustainable‐development‐goals‐institutional‐quality‐assessment</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education [INQAAHE]. 2022. International Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education. INQAAHE. https://<ulink href="http://www.inqaahe.org/sites/default/files/INQAAHE‐International‐Standardsand‐Guidelines‐ISG.pdf">www.inqaahe.org/sites/default/files/INQAAHE‐International‐Standardsand‐Guidelines‐ISG.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser, F., A. I. Melo, and A. Y. C. Hou. 2022. " Are Quality Assurance and Rankings Useful Tools to Measure 'New' Policy Issues in Higher Education? The Practices in Europe and Asia." European Journal of Higher Education 12, no. sup1 : 391 – 415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2094816.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakhno, M. 2024. " Green or Green‐Washed? Examining Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education." Higher Education Quarterly 78, no. 3 : 1099 – 1122. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12513.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiber, T. 2021. "On Innovative Governance of Higher Education Institutions: Quality Literacy, Performance Indicators and a Focus on Learning and Teaching." Conférence FORUM INNOVATION Réseau de Recherche sur l'Innovation (RRI). https://<ulink href="http://www.evalag.de/fileadmin/dateien/pdf/medien/2021/leiber%5frri%5f210602%5fact%5fsec.pdf">www.evalag.de/fileadmin/dateien/pdf/medien/2021/leiber%5frri%5f210602%5fact%5fsec.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mader, C., and C. Rammel. 2015. "Brief for GSDR 2015: Transforming Higher Education for Sustainable Development." UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/621564‐Mader_Rammel_Transforming%20Higher%20Education%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education (MOE). 2024. "List of Universities and Colleges in Taiwan." https://udb.moe.edu.tw/ulist/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education, Taiwan. 2020. "Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Education Manual—Taiwan Guide." https://<ulink href="http://www.edu.tw/News%5fContent.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=D0EB21D18CDE079F">www.edu.tw/News%5fContent.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=D0EB21D18CDE079F</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moon, C. J., A. Walmsley, and N. Apostolopoulos. 2018. " Governance Implications of the UN Higher Education Sustainability Initiative." Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 18, no. 4 : 624 – 634. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg‐01‐2018‐0020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morse, J. M., and L. Niehaus. 2009. Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315424538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Cheng Kung University [NCKU]. 2023. "NCKU, the Top‐Ranking University in Taiwan to Deliver SDGs and the 24th Globally by the Times Higher Education Impact Ranking." https://web.ncku.edu.tw/p/406‐1000‐254814,r3528.php?Lang=en.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Council for Sustainable Development. 2019. Taiwan Sustainable Development Goals. NCSD. https://ncsd.ndc.gov.tw/Fore/en/Taiwansdg.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Taiwan University. 2021. "2021 Social Responsibility and Sustainability Report." https://<ulink href="http://www.ntu.edu.tw/english/spotlight/2022/2078%5f20220719.html">www.ntu.edu.tw/english/spotlight/2022/2078%5f20220719.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University [NYCU]. 2022. "Institutional Strategic Plan." https://info.nycu.edu.tw/wp‐content/uploads/2022/06/2022_NYCU%E4%B8%AD%E9%95%B7%E7%A8%8B%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palinkas, L. A., S. M. Horwitz, C. A. Green, J. P. Wisdom, N. Duan, and K. Hoagwood. 2015. " Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research." Administration and Policy in Mental Health 42, no. 5 : 533 – 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488‐013‐0528‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, J., and T. Savelyeva. 2022. " An Interpretive Analysis of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals in Hong Kong Public Universities." Asia Pacific Education Review 23, no. 4 : 543 – 558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564‐022‐09777‐2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quacquarelli Symonds. 2023. Rankings Released! QS World University Rankings: Sustainability 2024. QS. https://<ulink href="http://www.qs.com/qs‐world‐university‐rankings‐sustainability‐2024‐released">www.qs.com/qs‐world‐university‐rankings‐sustainability‐2024‐released</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramakrishna, S. 2021. " Incorporating Sustainability Into the University Curriculum." Drying Technology 39, no. 8 : 985 – 988. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2021.1908806.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savelyeva, T. 2023. " Escaping the Structural Trap of Sustainability in Academia Through Global Learning Environments." Teaching Sustainability/Teaching Sustainably 181 : 231 – 241. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447429‐24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savelyeva, T., and J. Park. 2012. " Complexity of Campus Sustainability Discourse." In Sustainable Development at Universities: New Horizons, edited by W. L. Filho, 183 – 192. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SDSN Australia/Pacific. 2017. Getting Started With the SDGs in Universities: A Guide for Universities, Higher Education Institutions, and the Academic Sector. Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Edition. Sustainable Development Solutions Network—Australia/Pacific.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, J. C. 2018. " Quality Assurance Systems as a Higher Education Policy Tool in Korea: International Convergence and Local Contexts." International Journal of Educational Development 63 : 52 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soochow University. 2021. "2021 Sustainable Report." https://sdgs.scu.edu.tw/%e6%b0%b8%e7%ba%8c%e5%a0%b1%e5%91%8a%e6%9b%b8/2021%e6%b0%b8%e7%ba%8c%e5%a0%b1%e5%91%8a%e6%9b%b8/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Springer, S., K. Birch, and J. MacLeavy. 2016. " An Introduction to Neoliberalism." In The Handbook of Neoliberalism, edited by S. Springer, K. Birch, and J. MacLeavy, 2 – 14. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730660‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stensaker, B., and H. Hermansen. 2023. " Global, Nordic, or Institutional Visions? An Investigation Into How Nordic Universities Are Adapting to the SDGs." Higher Education 89, no. 2 : 293 – 309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734‐023‐01047‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tamkang University. 2021. "Sustainability Report Tamkang University." https://sdgs.web.tku.edu.tw/2023/doc/report_tku_2021.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Times Higher Education (THE). 2022. Impact Rankings: Faqs. Sage. https://<ulink href="http://www.timeshighereducation.com/world‐university‐rankings/impact‐rankings‐faqs">www.timeshighereducation.com/world‐university‐rankings/impact‐rankings‐faqs</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunghai University. 2023. "Tunghai University Ranks Global Fourth in SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy." https://eng.thu.edu.tw/web/news/news_detail.php?id=379.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U‐Multirank. 2024. "U‐Multirank Project." https://<ulink href="http://www.umultirank.org/about/u‐multirank/the‐project/">www.umultirank.org/about/u‐multirank/the‐project/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. 2023. "Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)." https://<ulink href="http://www.un.org/en/common‐agenda/sustainable‐development‐goals">www.un.org/en/common‐agenda/sustainable‐development‐goals</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. 2022. "Raising Awareness and Assessing Sustainability Literacy on SDG 7." https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdinaction/hesi/literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities in Asia. 2024. "UniRanks." https://<ulink href="http://www.4icu.org/Asia/">www.4icu.org/Asia/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities in Europe. 2024. "UniRanks." https://<ulink href="http://www.4icu.org/Europe/">www.4icu.org/Europe/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Vught, F., and H. de Boer. 2015. " Governance Models and Policy Instrument." In The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance, edited by J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. D. Dill, and M. Souto‐Otero, 35 – 56. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐137‐45617‐5_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolhuter, C. 2022. " The Sustainable Development Goals as Criteria for the Global Ranking of Universities." Perspectives in Education 40, no. 3 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593x/pie.v40.i3.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeh, S. C. 2017. " Exploring the Developmental Discourse of Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development." Journal of Environmental Education Research 13, no. 2 : 67 – 109. https://doi.org/10.6555/JEER.13.2.67.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Angela Yung Chi Hou; Ying Chen; Arianna Fang Yu Lin; Edward Hung Cheng Su; Kyle Zi‐Wei Zhou and Christopher Hong‐Yi Tao</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref127"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1478819
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Did Global Rankings and National Accreditation Drive Taiwanese Universities to Advance Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?--Competitive Advantage, a Moral Symbol or Leading to a Paradigm Shift
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Angela+Yung+Chi+Hou%22">Angela Yung Chi Hou</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3349-5671">0000-0003-3349-5671</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ying+Chen%22">Ying Chen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8026-7757">0000-0001-8026-7757</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arianna+Fang+Yu+Lin%22">Arianna Fang Yu Lin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Edward+Hung+Cheng+Su%22">Edward Hung Cheng Su</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1687-2818">0000-0003-1687-2818</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kyle+Zi-Wei+Zhou%22">Kyle Zi-Wei Zhou</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christopher+Hong-Yi+Tao%22">Christopher Hong-Yi Tao</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education+Quarterly%22"><i>Higher Education Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 79(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustainable+Development%22">Sustainable Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accreditation+%28Institutions%29%22">Accreditation (Institutions)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Rating%22">Achievement Rating</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Implementation%22">Program Implementation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Responsibility%22">Social Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alignment+%28Education%29%22">Alignment (Education)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Quality+Assurance%22">Quality Assurance</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Taiwan%22">Taiwan</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/hequ.70031
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0951-5224<br />1468-2273
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Universities have recognised the pivotal role they play in advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to build a sustainable society. Two quality assessment instruments in higher education, global rankings and quality assurance, have developed a new set of metrics to measure university commitment to SDGs. This paper aims to analyse the SDGs advancement of Taiwan's 46 universities listed in THE Impact Ranking 2022 in response to the emerging sustainability metrics developed by global rankings and national accreditation, and to explore the purposes, institutional strategies and challenges they encountered. Major findings are as follows. Firstly, competitive advantage is the key reason driving universities for SDGs implementation. Secondly, the common strategy is to align university social responsibility project with general education curriculum. Thirdly, SDGs data reliability, internal quality assurance (IQA) mechanism establishment, intersectoral coordination and faculty and student engagement are the key challenges for SDGs implementation in Taiwan's universities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1478819
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1478819
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/hequ.70031
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sustainable Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accreditation (Institutions)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Rating
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Implementation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alignment (Education)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Quality Assurance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Taiwan
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Did Global Rankings and National Accreditation Drive Taiwanese Universities to Advance Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?--Competitive Advantage, a Moral Symbol or Leading to a Paradigm Shift
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Angela Yung Chi Hou
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ying Chen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arianna Fang Yu Lin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Edward Hung Cheng Su
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kyle Zi-Wei Zhou
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christopher Hong-Yi Tao
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0951-5224
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1468-2273
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 79
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1