A Comparative Analysis between Global University Rankings and Environmental Sustainability of Universities

[EN] Global University Rankings (GURs) intend to measure the performance of universities worldwide. Other rankings have recently appeared that evaluate the creation of environmental policies in universities, e.g., the Universitas Indonesia (UI) GreenMetric. This work aims to analyze the interaction between the Top 500 of such rankings by considering the geographical location of universities and their typologies. A descriptive analysis and a statistical logistical regression analysis were carried out. The former demonstrated that European and North American universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while Asian universities did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking, followed by European universities. Older universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while younger ones did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking. The second analysis demonstrated that although Latin American universities were barely present in the Top 500 of GURs, the probability of them appearing in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking was 5-fold. We conclude that a low association exists between universities' academic performance and their commitment to the natural environment in the heart of their institutions. It would be advisable for GURs to include environmental indicators to promote sustainability at universities and to contribute to climate change.Muñoz-Suárez, M.; Guadalajara Olmeda, MN.; Osca Lluch, JM. (2020). A Comparative Analysis between Global University Rankings and Environmental Sustainability of Universities. Sustainability. 12(14):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145759S1191214Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495-533. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-1746-8Shehatta, I., & Mahmood, K. (2016). Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1231-1254. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2065-4Basu, A., Malhotra, D., Seth, T., & Kumar Muhuri, P. (2019). Global Distribution of Google Scholar Citations: A Size-independent Institution-based Analysis. Journal of Scientometric Research, 8(2), 72-78. doi:10.5530/jscires.8.2.12Mussard, M., & James, A. P. (2018). Engineering the Global University Rankings: Gold Standards, Limitations and Implications. IEEE Access, 6, 6765-6776. doi:10.1109/access.2017.2789326Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2017). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 153-160. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029Moed, H. F. (2016). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967-990. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2212-yKivinen, O., Hedman, J., & Artukka, K. (2017). Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized? Scientometrics, 112(1), 679-695. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1Alcaide, M. Á., De La Poza, E., & Guadalajara, N. (2019). Assessing the Sustainability of High-Value Brands in the IT Sector. Sustainability, 11(6), 1598. doi:10.3390/su11061598Massaro, M., Dumay, J., Garlatti, A., & Dal Mas, F. (2018). Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 367-386. doi:10.1108/jic-02-2017-0033De Filippo, D., Sandoval-Hamón, L. A., Casani, F., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2019). Spanish Universities’ Sustainability Performance and Sustainability-Related R&D+I. Sustainability, 11(20), 5570. doi:10.3390/su11205570Trencher, G., Nagao, M., Chen, C., Ichiki, K., Sadayoshi, T., Kinai, M., … Yarime, M. (2017). Implementing Sustainability Co-Creation between Universities and Society: A Typology-Based Understanding. Sustainability, 9(4), 594. doi:10.3390/su9040594Sonetti, G., Lombardi, P., & Chelleri, L. (2016). True Green and Sustainable University Campuses? Toward a Clusters Approach. Sustainability, 8(1), 83. doi:10.3390/su8010083Zou, Y., Zhao, W., Mason, R., & Li, M. (2015). Comparing Sustainable Universities between the United States and China: Cases of Indiana University and Tsinghua University. Sustainability, 7(9), 11799-11817. doi:10.3390/su70911799An, Y., Davey, H., & Harun, H. (2017). Sustainability Reporting at a New Zealand Public University: A Longitudinal Analysis. Sustainability, 9(9), 1529. doi:10.3390/su9091529Blasco, N., Brusca, I., & Labrador, M. (2019). Assessing Sustainability and Its Performance Implications: An Empirical Analysis in Spanish Public Universities. Sustainability, 11(19), 5302. doi:10.3390/su11195302Alshuwaikhat, H., Adenle, Y., & Saghir, B. (2016). Sustainability Assessment of Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 8(8), 750. doi:10.3390/su8080750Xiong, W., & Mok, K. H. (2020). Sustainability Practices of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong: A Case Study of a Sustainable Campus Consortium. Sustainability, 12(2), 452. doi:10.3390/su12020452Leal Filho, W., Emblen-Perry, K., Molthan-Hill, P., Mifsud, M., Verhoef, L., Azeiteiro, U. M., … Price, E. (2019). Implementing Innovation on Environmental Sustainability at Universities Around the World. Sustainability, 11(14), 3807. doi:10.3390/su11143807Brusca, I., Labrador, M., & Larran, M. (2018). The challenge of sustainability and integrated reporting at universities: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 347-354. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.292Alonso-García, S., Aznar-Díaz, I., Cáceres-Reche, M.-P., Trujillo-Torres, J.-M., & Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. (2019). Systematic Review of Good Teaching Practices with ICT in Spanish Higher Education. Trends and Challenges for Sustainability. Sustainability, 11(24), 7150. doi:10.3390/su11247150Von Hauff, M., & Nguyen, T. (2014). Universities as Potential Actors for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 6(5), 3043-3063. doi:10.3390/su6053043Roos, N., & Guenther, E. (2020). Sustainability management control systems in higher education institutions from measurement to management. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(1), 144-160. doi:10.1108/ijshe-01-2019-0030Caeiro, S., Sandoval Hamón, L. A., Martins, R., & Bayas Aldaz, C. E. (2020). Sustainability Assessment and Benchmarking in Higher Education Institutions—A Critical Reflection. Sustainability, 12(2), 543. doi:10.3390/su12020543Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., & Jørgensen, T. H. (2009). University engagement and regional sustainability initiatives: some Danish experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(12), 1067-1074. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.013Salvioni, D. M., Franzoni, S., & Cassano, R. (2017). Sustainability in the Higher Education System: An Opportunity to Improve Quality and Image. Sustainability, 9(6), 914. doi:10.3390/su9060914Li, X., Ni, G., & Dewancker, B. (2019). Improving the attractiveness and accessibility of campus green space for developing a sustainable university environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33399-33415. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06319-zSuwartha, N., & Berawi, M. A. (2019). The Role of UI GreenMetric as a Global Sustainable Rankings for Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Technology, 10(5), 862. doi:10.14716/ijtech.v10i5.3670Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2019). Sustainability in Universities: DEA-GreenMetric. Sustainability, 11(14), 3766. doi:10.3390/su11143766Academic Ranking of World Universities-ARWUhttp://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2017.htmlQS Top University Rankingshttps://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodologyTHE World University Rankingshttps://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankingsRanking Web de Universidades-Webometricshttp://www.webometrics.info/en/About_UsLiu, Z., Moshi, G. J., & Awuor, C. M. (2019). Sustainability and Indicators of Newly Formed World-Class Universities (NFWCUs) between 2010 and 2018: Empirical Analysis from the Rankings of ARWU, QSWUR and THEWUR. Sustainability, 11(10), 2745. doi:10.3390/su11102745Marginson, S. (2013). University Rankings and Social Science. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 45-59. doi:10.1111/ejed.12061Hauptman Komotar, M. (2019). Global university rankings and their impact on the internationalisation of higher education. European Journal of Education, 54(2), 299-310. doi:10.1111/ejed.12332Peters, M. A. (2017). Global university rankings: Metrics, performance, governance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 5-13. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1381472Hosier, M., & Hoolash, B. K. A. (2017). The effect of methodological variations on university rankings and associated decision-making and policy. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 201-214. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1356282Safón, V. (2019). Inter-ranking reputational effects: an analysis of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE) reputational relationship. Scientometrics, 121(2), 897-915. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03214-9Tuesta, E. F., Garcia-Zorita, C., Ayllon, R. R., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2019). Does a Country/Region’s Economic Status Affect Its Universities’ Presence in International Rankings? Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(2), 56-78. doi:10.2478/jdis-2019-0009Dobrota, M., & Dobrota, M. (2015). ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity: What if the award factor was Excluded? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(2), 480-482. doi:10.1002/asi.23527Dowsett, L. (2020). Global university rankings and strategic planning: a case study of Australian institutional performance. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(4), 478-494. doi:10.1080/1360080x.2019.1701853Rehman, M. A., Kashif, M., & Mingione, M. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability (CSRS) Initiatives among European and Asian Business Schools: A Web-based Content Analysis. Global Business Review, 20(5), 1231-1247. doi:10.1177/0972150917737435Doğan, G., & Al, U. (2019). Is it possible to rank universities using fewer indicators? A study on five international university rankings. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 18-37. doi:10.1108/ajim-05-2018-0118Siniksaran, E., & Satman, M. H. (2019). WURS: a simulation software for university rankings—software review. Scientometrics, 122(1), 701-717. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03269-8Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Çilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), 813-848. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1586-6Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2016). Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities. Scientometrics, 110(2), 739-764. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2189-6Jöns, H., & Hoyler, M. (2013). Global geographies of higher education: The perspective of world university rankings. Geoforum, 46, 45-59. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.014UI GreenMetric World University Rankinghttp://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/Suwartha, N., & Sari, R. F. (2013). Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 46-53. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.034Lauder, A., Sari, R. F., Suwartha, N., & Tjahjono, G. (2015). Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 852-863. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.080Ragazzi, M., & Ghidini, F. (2017). Environmental sustainability of universities: critical analysis of a green ranking. Energy Procedia, 119, 111-120. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.054Marrone, P., Orsini, F., Asdrubali, F., & Guattari, C. (2018). Environmental performance of universities: Proposal for implementing campus urban morphology as an evaluation parameter in Green Metric. Sustainable Cities and Society, 42, 226-239. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.07.012Drahein, A. D., De Lima, E. P., & Da Costa, S. E. G. (2019). Sustainability assessment of the service operations at seven higher education institutions in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 527-536. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.293Parvez, N., & Agrawal, A. (2019). Assessment of sustainable development in technical higher education institutes of India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 975-994. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.305Undetermined Scalehttps://www.google.es/maps/@39.4657727,-0.8023025,3zQGIS Geographic Information Systemhttps://qgis.orgGao, X. (Andy), & Zheng, Y. (2018). ‘Heavy mountains’ for Chinese humanities and social science academics in the quest for world-class universities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(4), 554-572. doi:10.1080/03057925.2018.1538770Zhou, Y., & Wu, J. (2016). The Game Plan: Four Contradictions in the Development of World Class Universities from the Global South. TED EĞİTİM VE BİLİM, 41(184). doi:10.15390/eb.2016.6152Alba-Hidalgo, D., Benayas del Álamo, J., & Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. (2018). Towards a Definition of Environmental Sustainability Evaluation in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy, 31(4), 447-470. doi:10.1057/s41307-018-0106-

Evaluation of research activities of universities of Ukraine and Belarus: a set of bibliometric indicators and its implementation

Monitoring bibliometric indicators of University rankings is considered as a subject of a University library activity. In order to fulfill comparative assessment of research activities of the universities of Ukraine and Belarus the authors introduced a set of bibliometric indicators. A comparative assessment of the research activities of corresponding universities was fulfilled; the data on the leading universities are presented. The sensitivity of the one of the indicators to rapid changes of the research activity of universities and the fact that the other one is normalized across the fields of science condition advantage of the proposed set over the one that was used in practice of the corresponding national rankings

Cities on and off the map: A bibliometric assessment of urban globalisation research

Growing out of writings on Global (North) cities, urban globalisation research (UGR) has expanded its canon to engage with an increasing diversity of cities and locations. Yet, this broadening has been uneven and controversial in its theoretical horizons and empirical universe. Focusing on the latter, this paper combines bibliometric, demographic, economic and georeferenced data to assess how UGR maps onto internationally documented cities ( n : 1692). Our study analyses city-themed publications by city location, demographic size and home-country income (2000–2014). Drawing on social science publications indexed in English (Scopus database), our results provide grounds for cautious optimism: recent publications offer broader, though still uneven coverage. The moving spatial average of publication counts also implies that the topical centre of published research gravity is shifting away from Euro-America. Yet, UGR lags in its coverage of the urban geographical universe, failing to keep pace with the economic/demographic trends that are resulting in southward/eastward shifts in worldwide urbanisation. Furthermore, while smaller cities and those in lower-income countries are still sidelined, cities in upper-middle income countries exhibit the largest gaps between observed and expected publication values. In our conclusion, we contend that urban bibliometrics could be further mobilised to identify publication foci and lacunae. Applied to cities on and off the map and a broader universe of urban knowledges, bibliometrics could help move contentious debates forward, identifying newer paradigms that may be engaging the world of cities beyond the globalisation umbrella and charting out multiple and complex topical relations across variegated worlds of urbanism

Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education

This paper presents a critical review of the relevant literature on managerialism and performance management in higher education. Afterwards, it features an inductive research that involved semi-structured interview sessions with academic members of staff. The interpretative study relied on the balanced scorecard’s (BSC) approach as it appraised the participants' opinions and perceptions on their higher education institution’s (HEI) customer, internal, organizational capacity and financial perspectives. The findings have revealed the strengths and weaknesses of using the BSC’s financial and non-financial measures to assess the institutional performance and the productivity of individual employees. In sum, this research reported that ongoing performance conversations with academic employees will help HEI leaders to identify their institutions’ value creating activities. This contribution implies that HEI leaders can utilize the BSC’s comprehensive framework as a plausible, performance management tool to regularly evaluate whether their institution is: (i) delivering inclusive, student-centered, quality education; (ii) publishing high impact research; (iii) engaging with internal and external stakeholders; and (iv) improving its financial results, among other positive outcomes.peer-reviewe

Ranking of palliative care development in the countries of the European Union

Context There is growing interest in monitoring palliative care (PC) development internationally. One aspect of this is the ranking of such development for comparative purposes. Objectives To generate a ranking classification and to compare scores for PC development in the countries of the European Union (EU), 2007 and 2013. PC “development” in this study is understood as a combination of the existence of relevant services in a country (“resources”) plus the capacity to develop further resources in the future (“vitality”). Methods “Resources” comprise indicators of three types of PC services per population (inpatient palliative care units and inpatient hospices [IPCU], hospital support teams [HST] and home care teams [HCT]). “Vitality” of PC is estimated by numerical scores for the existence of a national association, a directory of services, physician accreditation, attendances at a key European conference and volume of publications on PC development. The leading country (by raw score) is then considered as the reference point against which all other countries are measured. Different weightings are applied to resources (75%) and vitality (25%). From this, an overall ranking is constructed. Results The U.K. achieved the highest level of development (86% of the maximum possible score), followed by Belgium and The Netherlands (81%), and Sweden (80%). In the domain resources, Luxembourg, the U.K. and Belgium were leading. The top countries in vitality were Germany and the U.K. In comparison to 2007, The Netherlands, Malta and Portugal showed the biggest improvements, whereas the positions of Spain, France and Greece deteriorated. Conclusion The ranking method permitted a comparison of palliative care development between countries and shows changes over time. Recommendations for improving the ranking include improvements to the methodology and greater explanation of the levels and changes it reveals

Dropping off the edge 2015: persistent communal disadvantage in Australia

This report shows that complex and entrenched disadvantage is experienced by a small but persistent number of locations in each state and territory across Australia. Foreword In 2007, Jesuit Social Services and Catholic Social Services Australia commissioned ground-breaking research into place-based disadvantage across the nation. The resulting report, Dropping off the edge, built on previous work that Jesuit Social Services had engaged Professor Tony Vinson to undertake on its behalf and quickly became a critical resource for governments, service providers and communities attempting to address the challenge of entrenched and often complex geographical disadvantage. That report received over 284 scholarly citations and supported the establishment of the Australian Social Inclusion Board – a body charged with identifying long-term strategies to end poverty in Australia. Since the publication of Dropping off the edge, our organisations have received many requests to update the findings and produce a new report tracking the wellbeing of communities in Australia over the intervening time. Sadly, the current report drives home the enormous challenge that lies in front of our policy makers and service providers, as many communities identified as disadvantaged in 2007 once again head the list in each state and territory. As a society we cannot, and should not, turn away from the challenge of persistent and entrenched locational disadvantage, no matter how difficult it may be to solve the problem. We call on government, community and business to come together to work alongside these communities to ensure long term sustainable change. We hold hope that the young people and future generations in these communities will have a better outlook and life opportunities than is currently available to them. It is our belief that every Australian should have access to the opportunities in life that will enable them to flourish – to complete their education, to get a job, to access safe and affordable housing, to raise their children in safe communities and to see the next generation thrive. Jesuit Social Services and Catholic Social Services Australia are indebted to the dedication and perseverance of Professor Tony Vinson in leading this important research and analysis over the past 15 years. Julie Edwards Chief Executive Officer Jesuit Social Services Marcelle Mogg Chief Executive Officer Catholic Social Services Australi